[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4973-H5032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Just a few minutes ago, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied 
the requests of Gary Graham for clemency and an opportunity for a new 
hearing. At this time, his execution is set for 6:00 p.m. today.
  Gary Graham continues to press his case to show his innocence and 
argues that witnesses that could have presented his case of innocence 
were not heard. Gary Graham, 17 years old, did not have the counsel 
that might have generated a trial that might have had the opportunity 
for fact finders to make a full and open decision.
  Justice in this Nation should not be determined by one's wealth, and 
although the Legal Services Corporation does not deal in criminal 
matters or death penalty cases, I use this day's tragedy to argue for 
the amendment before us, because it is important for the American 
people to understand that we are a Nation of laws.
  I believe the American people accept that. It is a voluntary system 
where we commit ourselves to be governed by laws. We seek to address 
our grievances by the legal system, and we go into courts or proceed 
under administrative proceedings.
  The Legal Services Corporation that generates dollars into our local 
community, in my instance, the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation in Houston, 
Texas that I served as a board member on, argues for those who cannot 
speak for themselves. It argues for those who cannot afford the 
billable hours, and it provides the bare minimum quality of life issues 
that many of us take for granted.
  It works with families who do not have housing. It assists the 
homeless or those who are in transition, and it is interesting as we 
look at the history of the funding of Legal Services, it has had a very 
rocky history over these last couple of years.
  There has been no denial that it has not done good work, that it has 
not worked with those in the Indian population here in America, that it 
has not worked with mothers of children needing services, as I 
indicated, educational services, special education, housing, food 
services and mental health services.
  But yet this organization has been attacked, and I wonder has it been 
attacked because its clientele is voiceless. It cannot lobby the United 
States Congress to ensure that it gets the money. I look at its 
budgeting, and I see that over the years 1995, $400 million, but yet 
steadily it has gone down, and this committee puts in $141 million, a 
mere $141 million to fund Legal Services Corporation for the whole 
Nation.

[[Page H4974]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this amendment that adds $134 million 
that brings it up to $275 million, because there are people who cannot 
fight the landlord who have reasons not to be evicted. There are people 
who need child support who cannot fight the large entity that opposes 
them who deserve child support for their children.
  In a hearing just a few weeks ago with Senator Paul Wellstone in my 
district, hundreds of people were in the room to attest to the fact 
that they cannot get mental health services for their children because 
of the stigma of mental illness, because of their resources, because of 
their frustration, because of the lack of services.
  The Legal Services Corporation steps in to help those people find the 
benefits that they deserve. It helps the senior citizen who is either 
lost or does not have its Medicare, Social Security. It helps those who 
are fighting about pension benefits. But why we would be on the floor 
of the House or bring a bill to the floor that suggests that by your 
wealth shall you be judged and by your wealth shall justice be 
determined.
  I would hope as the verse or the words in To Kill a Mockingbird that 
whether you are a pauper or a prince, the justice in America is equal.
  Gary Graham's case is now moving toward possibly its end; ineffective 
counsel is without a doubt one of the reasons that he is where he is 
today. He acknowledges his actions of the past were not good actions. 
He was not a model citizen, but I would think that all of us would want 
each person in this Nation to have justice.
  I am disappointed that we have not found justice and found the 
commitment provided for all people. Let us support this amendment. It 
is a good amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to increase 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I stood here in the same 
spot last year and said the same message I am saying today, I strongly 
believe in access to legal services for individuals of all income 
levels, but this program should not be a Federal responsibility.
  Everyone deserves representation, but the cases and illustrations 
given today are issues that are addressed at the State court level, at 
local court level, under State law, this is not the Federal 
responsibility. Yes, these people need to be represented. In Texas, 
Texas has that responsibility. In my State of Florida, Florida needs to 
take on that responsibility. In the State of Washington, Washington 
should take on that responsibility.
  This is not the Federal responsibility. Over five times as many 
State, local and pro bono programs available for these types of 
services and private lawyers already perform over 24 million hours of 
pro bono work valued at $3.3 billion. This clearly dwarfs the Federal 
role the Legal Service Corporation provides.
  In addition to the questionable Federal role, Legal Services 
Corporation continues to be plagued by controversy. A GAO study last 
year revealed that Legal Services Corporation had grossly overstated 
the number of cases it reported for the year, which resulted in Members 
of Congress believing that Legal Services Corporation had been much 
higher than reality.
  This year the Legal Services Corporation's case reported statistics 
went from last year's initial estimate of 1.9 million cases to under 1 
million cases this year, a drastic and disturbing reduction.
  Before Congress funds an agency, it should understand what workload 
will be accomplished with the money, something which has been called 
into question when it comes to the Legal Service Corporation.
  My friends across the aisle complain that we have this funding 
argument every year, but it is an important debate to have, because the 
program has not been authorized since the 1980s.
  We talk about authorization every time on an appropriation bill, but 
here is a program that has not been authorized. In my opinion, it 
belongs to the State level, and everybody needs to have that 
representation. But here is a program that the track record has not 
been the most effective way that money has been spent in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-
Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services 
Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services 
Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it 
even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor.
  Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to 
eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot 
survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services 
from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in 
fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to 
$141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 
59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million.
  Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 
30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, 
family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two-
thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving 
violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 
battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the 
primary issue was domestic violence.
  Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, 
cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation 
for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal 
Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of 
the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance.
  One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans 
is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing 
the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 
2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest 
and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services 
representation.
  Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded 
Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through 
the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and 
use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time.
  I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life 
in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is 
tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no 
other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many 
are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, 
because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions 
who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in 
many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, 
they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they 
would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and 
some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can 
afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but 
it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They 
lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and 
they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home 
away from me.
  Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal 
Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of 
people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the 
only valuable asset they have.
  Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in 
the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I 
do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away 
with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What 
are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are 
getting ripped off?
  I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will 
get

[[Page H4975]]

people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do 
not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. 
They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under 
these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only 
organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt 
amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to 
adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised 
citizens.
  Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income 
people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members 
of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument 
here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is 
simple equity.
  The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who 
need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer 
fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 
million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family 
farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and 
hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, 
access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. 
Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their 
homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity.
  I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the 
organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it 
distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven 
highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional 
guidelines.
  The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has 
established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response 
to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from 
engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, 
lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion 
litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not 
vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with 
private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote 
pro bono services from private attorneys.
  So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services 
Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting 
taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible 
organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in 
our society.
  To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear 
abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial 
system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this 
Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two 
categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots.
  Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have 
one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, 
regardless of their income.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that 
we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes 
a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to 
understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that 
is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an 
allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national 
responsibilities.
  Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly 
welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to 
ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to 
justify voting for this bill.
  Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give 
people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in 
court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 
million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving 
from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few 
dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as 
this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who 
make over three hundred grand a year.
  The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, 
instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise 
it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's 
level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate.
  We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the 
majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on 
the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those 
circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think 
that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We 
will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the 
legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding.
  So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the 
amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I 
suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real 
needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which 
they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like 
Santa Claus on a good day.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. I must 
confess I am amazed each year. I am amazed, because each year when it 
comes time for this appropriation, there are always Members who come to 
the floor, there are always Members who come and try and find a way.
  Now, I can understand certain kinds of cuts, and I can understand 
when you have got these huge amounts of money that there is some 
possibility of perhaps some of it even being wasted. But I have serious 
difficulty understanding how we could deny the most basic 
representation to those in our society who have virtually nothing with 
which to be represented.
  I come from a district that has 165,000 people in it who live at or 
below the level of poverty. I come from a district that has 68 percent 
of all of the public housing in the City of Chicago, some of the most 
distressed public housing, some of the most distressed people. I come 
from a district that has 13 of the 15 poorest census tracts in urban 
America in that district. And I come to this floor to hear conversation 
that would deny all of these people.
  Down the hall from my office is a Legal Services office, and all day 
long I see people marching in and out. All day long when I am in my 
district office I receive telephone calls from individuals with 
problems where they are seeking some help, some assistance; and I see 
these young lawyers in the Legal Services office who have decided that 
they are going to give of themselves in such a way. Many of them could 
even be in big firms earning big salaries, but they have decided to do 
their work where it is greatly needed. I would think that this House 
could do no less.

                              {time}  1615

  So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the pursuit 
of justice for even those who could be described as being the least 
among us in terms of the resources with which to pay.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking 
member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this 
bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the 
ranking member for this very important amendment.
  As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a 
very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the 
past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The 
bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million 
from President Clinton's request.

[[Page H4976]]

It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and 
severely imperil our legal system.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest 
country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all 
Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those 
rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for 
the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great 
country. A person's income should not determine whether or not 
Americans have access to the civil justice system.
  Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary 
source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of 
domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of 
Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers 
with children.
  The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal 
assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these 
clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most 
of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et 
cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the 
elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud.
  I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to 
demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services 
Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and 
if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are 
very, very important.
  When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no 
funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled 
all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep 
the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 
10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and 
again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court.
  A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A 
lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal 
proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid 
attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her 
informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, 
her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate 
that the children would be better off in her care.
  As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept 
possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the 
children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is 
safe and they can remain together.
  Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to 
urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of 
Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access 
to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive 
spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. 
Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a 
woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to 
meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very 
important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will 
be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future.
  But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 
levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more 
funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. 
There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching 
with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that 
level over 6 years later.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important 
amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the 
American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our 
country.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a very strange set of 
priorities in this institution. In the last couple of months, we 
apparently had enough money and found enough money to increase military 
spending by $22 billion, despite the fact that we are not quite sure 
who the enemy is. At a time when the United States has by far the most 
unequal distribution of wealth and income of any Nation on Earth, a 
majority of the members of the House voted to give huge tax breaks to 
millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest people in this country. 
We apparently had enough money to do that. Every single year the United 
States Congress provides over $100 billion worth of corporate welfare 
to some of the largest and most profitable institutions in the world.
  However, when it comes to providing low-income Americans the ability 
to have equal and adequate legal representation to take care of their 
needs, suddenly, my goodness, we just do not have enough money 
available. For the sixth year in a row, the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, 
Justice-reported bill includes only $141 million for the Legal Services 
Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation of $305 million, and $199 million below the President's 
fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million.
  What are we talking about? There is enough money to fund the Star 
Wars program, which is not needed and will not work; but when we ask 
for money to enable low-income women so that when they are battered 
they can go to court and defend themselves, when they need help for 
adoption, for child custody and support, for visitation rights, for 
guardianship, for divorce and separation, for protection against 
domestic violence, my goodness, there is no money available.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a growing perception in the United States that 
we are becoming two societies, those people who have the money and 
everybody else. Yesterday, the World Health Organization issued a 
report which basically said that, if you are wealthy in America, you 
get the best health care in the world; if you are low-income in 
America, you get below dozens and dozens of other countries. And that 
perception exists in terms of justice. If you are wealthy in America, 
you have a battery of lawyers coming forward, and you have the best 
legal protection that money can buy; and if you lose, you know how to 
use the appeal process, and if you lose then, you know how to negotiate 
a settlement, which gives you the best that you can get. But if you are 
poor, it is increasingly difficult to find a competent attorney who 
will represent your interests.
  Now, it is one thing to cut housing programs so that low-income 
people pay 50 percent of their income in housing; it is one thing to 
provide inadequate nutrition, it is one thing to provide inadequate 
housing programs so that people sleep out in the street, but even worse 
than all of that, it is really awful, really awful and unacceptable to 
deny people the right to legally represent themselves. What we are 
doing essentially is tying people's hands behind their backs and 
saying, we can do all that we want to you and you are not going to have 
the resources to defend yourself in the halls of justice, and that 
suggests that justice is severely lacking for millions of Americans.
  So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the House of 
Representatives have the common decency to provide justice for all 
people and support this very important amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate 
the proposed draconian 59 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal 
Services.
  Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of 
those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the 
Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights 
that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact 
campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the 
best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. 
Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real 
chance of finding justice in our courts.
  There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability 
of low-income

[[Page H4977]]

people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal 
Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the 
Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven 
politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would 
command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless 
assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents 
tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution 
against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered 
discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of 
domestic violence against those who perpetuate domestic violence. No 
wonder it is so unpopular.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be 
entitled to fair legal representation. A right without ability to 
enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a 
dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal 
services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So 
there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need 
competent legal representation in this society.
  In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the 
Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has 
not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal 
court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job 
of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, 
but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should 
be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan 
coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be 
enough now.
  Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live 
up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some 
have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal 
Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing 
large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But 
imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this 
reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to 
some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one 
has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and 
abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out 
of the defense budget. That would be absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The 
newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people 
feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do 
not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is 
substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from 
Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or 
the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in 
the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services 
Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in 
the judicial branch, too.
  We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity 
of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the 
fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need 
the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal 
representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair 
representation.
  This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the 
honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of 
government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice 
under law.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent 
support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. 
Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves--
the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a 
blue chip law firm to have their rights defended.
  As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation 
has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even 
advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation.
  Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On 
these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services 
corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget.
  Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my 
colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they 
could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and 
launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the 
ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its 
constituency.
  Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot 
participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation 
related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local 
prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare 
reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal 
Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and 
attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under 
attack.
  Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the 
real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is 
the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican 
led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal 
Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, 
are the first ones targeted.
  Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away 
tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal 
needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that 
approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of 
an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of 
us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the 
criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. 
We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive 
inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to 
participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does 
nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in 
civil litigation.
  I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal 
services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they 
would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which 
include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the 
Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide 
legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least.
  As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are 
duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people 
who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel 
when the need arises.
  Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the 
General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the 
Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 
2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in 
funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have 
a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much 
better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         Counterterrorism Fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney 
     General, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, to 
     reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the 
     costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability 
     of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed 
     as a result of any domestic or international terrorist 
     incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, 
     investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, 
     including payment of rewards in connection with these 
     activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be 
     reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries 
     individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the 
     laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds 
     provided under this paragraph shall be available only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt 
amendment. As the vice-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's 
Issues, I must urge the passage of this amendment, and I am pleased to 
stand here with the support of others to support this amendment.
  It is because of the abuse that goes on daily in the lives of far too 
many women and children is why I stand here today; and the need for 
legal services for these, the most vulnerable of our Nation, is 
immense. This amendment ensures the proper representation is provided 
for women who are facing domestic violence. As we recognize that sexual 
violence against women is the single most unreported crime; therefore, 
understanding and competent representation is critical for those brave 
women who step forward.
  In 1999, Mr. Chairman, LSC resolved more than 924,000 cases, the vast 
majority of which have helped women and children. LSC is making a 
difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children 
across this country, and we must continue this success.
  We recognize that the most vulnerable of those first are the women.

[[Page H4978]]

 While domestic violence occurs in all income levels, low-income women 
are significantly more likely to experience violence than any other 
women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical 
research asserts that 61 percent of women who head poor families 
experience severe physical violence as adults at the hands of male 
partners.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent Watts and Compton and Wilmington, some of 
the most impoverished areas in this country; and I have seen how 
domestic violence has absolutely just ripped apart women and children. 
I know that we have won this amendment, but I just wanted to stand to 
recognize those women who have stepped forward who are really strong 
and brave women.


                   help victims of domestic violence

  Mr. Chairman, low-income women are significantly more likely to 
experience violence than other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of 
Justice Statistics. Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women 
who head poor families have experienced severe physical violence as 
adults at the hands of male partners.
  The problems faced by low-income battered women can be particularly 
acute and complex. Often they are financially dependent on their 
batterer and require an immediate source of support and shelter in 
order to escape from a dangerous situation. In many communities, 
emergency shelters are simply not available; where they are, they are 
frequently forced to turn victims away due to overcrowding as too often 
battered women and their children are forced to return to the home that 
they share with the batterer because they have nowhere else to go.


                    help children living in poverty

  Every year, LSC-funded programs help millions of children living in 
poverty, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support, 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other benefits, and to find 
safe haven against violence in the home.
  The number of children living in poverty is increasing. The legal 
problems faced by people living in poverty can have particularly 
serious, long-term consequences for children. For example, a family 
with children that goes unrepresented in an eviction proceeding can 
easily find itself homeless, due to the chronic shortage of low-income 
housing. We can do better, better as a rich country to protect and take 
care of our children.


                            senior citizens

  Many elderly people depend on government benefits, such as Social 
Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans Benefits, Food 
Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, for income and health care. One of the 
challenges of the entitlement system is that an attorney is often 
needed to navigate the system. Legal services programs frequently 
represent clients in establishing their eligibility for these programs 
or dealing with reimbursement or benefit problems.
  Older people are frequently victims of consumer fraud, particularly 
if they lack financial sophistication or have lowered mental capacity 
because of age-related illness. They are often victimized by 
contractors who promise to make repairs but perform incompletely, 
charging exorbitant prices. Faced with the need to make expensive 
repairs on their homes, pay medical bills, or supplement their income 
after the death of a spouse, they may be enticed into home equity loans 
they cannot afford. In many cases, only the intervention of a legal 
services attorney has prevented victims from becoming homeless.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette:
       Page 4, after line 14, insert the following:

                        site security reporting


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Attorney General in carrying 
     out section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (as added 
     by section 3(a) of the Chemical Safety Information, Site 
     Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40)), 
     to be derived by transfer from the amount made available in 
     this title for ``Counterterrorism Fund'', $750,000.

  Ms. DeGETTE (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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment, 
along with my distinguished colleagues and good friends from the 
Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to protect the health and 
safety of millions of Americans.

                              {time}  1630

  The Clean Air Act contains a provision, section 112, that was 
intended to reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals stored at 
66,000 facilities in the United States, to inform the public of these 
risks, and to facilitate planning for these risks. We know accidents at 
facilities that store hazardous chemicals can result in environmental 
damage, and in injuries and even deaths to workers and people in the 
surrounding communities.
  Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of the American public lives within 5 
miles of one of these facilities. The best way to reduce the risk posed 
to our constituents is to make public information about risks so that 
community responders, emergency personnel, schools, and anyone living 
near these facilities can be prepared.
  In August of last year, this body passed the Chemical Safety 
Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill 
easily passed the House and the other body and was signed into law by 
the President last year.
  In the law, we heeded the concerns of the FBI and the industry that 
criminals may obtain information required by the Clean Air Act if this 
information is posted on the Internet. The risk of terrorist attack on 
one of these facilities remains unclear as, thankfully, no attacks have 
occurred on American soil.
  Nonetheless, we sought to balance the community's right to 
information with any incremental risk that a criminal might have access 
to the information. In that same law, we required the Attorney General 
to conduct a study of security at facilities that store or use 
extremely dangerous materials.
  One component of the study is a review of the vulnerability of the 
facilities to criminal or terrorist activity, current industry 
practices regarding site security, and the security of transportation 
of hazardous substances. An interim report from the Attorney General is 
due in August of 2000, and the law requires a full report by August, 
2002.
  Mr. Chairman, if the FBI or anyone else is concerned that the 
information about these facilities may be attractive to terrorists, 
then we all must be concerned that these facilities are doing what they 
can to secure their loading docks, rail spurs, and storage areas from 
criminal activity. This study will be instrumental to the ability of 
the Department to accurately assess the risk posed by terrorists and 
criminals.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the study requirement contained 
in the law, the Department of Justice tells us they do not have the 
funds to carry out this requirement.
  In March of this year, the Attorney General requested a reprogramming 
in the amount of $750,000 from the counterterrorism fund to do this 
study. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), recently wrote a letter to the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations in support of the 
need for funding, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, Mr. 
Chairman, I will request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the 
Record.
  Mr. Chairman, to date Congress has not acted on the Department of 
Justice's request. That is the purpose of this amendment. This 
amendment will allocate $750,000 in the Department of Justice 
counterterrorism fund for this study. This amendment will allow the 
Attorney General to fully comply with our mandate in the chemical 
safety act and will provide valuable safety information to our 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In my 
home, for example, which is a transportation and economics center, we 
are also a home to many environmental issues. My constituents and I 
know the importance of ensuring that our facilities are safe and 
secure.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Alison Taylor and Sarah Keim of 
the Democratic staff of the Committee on Commerce and also Robert Gropp 
of

[[Page H4979]]

my staff for their continued hard work on this important issue.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for offering this 
amendment, and commend her and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for 
their leadership on this important issue.
  Chemical facilities are obvious targets for terrorist attack. Many of 
them are located in the hearts of our communities with large population 
centers. As a result, Congress, when we learned about the chemical 
facilities lacking sufficient security to address the threat of 
terrorist attack, asked the Attorney General to examine the 
vulnerability of these facilities and to report back to the Congress, 
but we have not had this study funded.
  This amendment would provide funding for the study, and I want to 
join with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in support of her 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and thank her for 
her good work.
  This amendment would help protect the public by funding a study of 
security of chemical facilities to help protect the public from 
releases of dangerous chemicals into the air.
  The Clean Air Act requires chemical facilities to develop risk 
management plans, including worst case accident scenarios, for the EPA. 
These plans were to be made available to the public so that anyone, 
fathers, mothers, coworkers, teachers, could learn about the potential 
for a chemical accident in his or her own community.
  Last year, concerns were raised that terrorists would use the worst 
case scenario information to attack chemical facilities. In response, 
this Congress passed and the President signed legislation restricting 
release of the information. In May, the administration released a 
proposed rule sharply restricting public access to the data on chemical 
hazards.
  Mr. Chairman, I remain skeptical of these severe limits on the 
public's right to know about chemical hazards in our community. 
Chemical accidents are a daily reality in this country, sometimes 
taking the lives of fellow workers, of neighbors, of parents, of 
children, of travelers, while terrorist attacks are rare, indeed.
  If these chemical facilities, however, are indeed tempting targets 
for terrorists, our focus should be on restricting terrorists' access 
to them, rather than restricting the public's access to information 
about them.
  Last year the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
investigated several chemical sites and found it easy to walk in 
through unguarded gates and unattended entrances. This amendment will 
reprogram $750,000, as requested by the Attorney General, from the 
counterterrorism fund to carry out the study authorized last year by 
this body.
  If terrorism truly is a threat at chemical sites, this is a small 
amount of money to spend to investigate that risk. If terrorism is not 
enough of a threat to justify $750,000, I then question the 
restrictions that have been placed on community access to chemical 
accident information.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman and the other Members' 
interest in this issue. I can assure the gentlewoman and the others 
that I will be happy to work with them to ensure that this study is 
funded.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, with the assurance from the chairman that 
he will work with us on this matter to secure funding for the 
Department of Justice to conduct the study, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund

       For payments authorized by section 109 of the 
     Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 
     1008), $282,500,000, to remain available until expended.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``General 
     Administration--telecommunications carrier compliance fund'', 
     after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $4,479,000)''.
       In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the second 
     dollar amount insert ``(increased by $4,479,000)''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment that will have 
a very positive impact on our country's economy. Quite simply, it will 
bring the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center 
Program from $8.89 million currently provided in this bill up to its 
authorized level of $13 million, and provide the President's budget 
request of $1 million for the SBA's National Women's Business Council 
up from the $595,000 currently in this bill.
  The total amount provided by this amendment to achieve these goals is 
$4.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be here today standing with my 
distinguished and bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender-
McDonald), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  This is an issue we feel very passionately about, and urge all our 
colleagues to join us in providing expanded opportunity for women 
entrepreneurs that will strengthen our entire economy. According to the 
results of the 2000 Avon Global Women's Survey that polled 30,000 women 
from 33 countries, the top three factors that women across the world 
feel would improve their lives in the new millenium are, one, financial 
independence; two, equal job opportunities; and three, the ability to 
start one's own business.
  Here in the United States, we are living in the largest economic 
expansion in our Nation's history. Now more than ever it is incumbent 
upon us to ensure that all Americans benefit from and have the 
opportunity to contribute to our prosperity.
  Overall, women can and are succeeding in the business arena. In fact, 
women-owned businesses are a true American success story, growing twice 
as fast as all other businesses.
  As of 1999, there were 9.11 million women-owned businesses in the 
United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and 
employing 27.5 million workers. Yet, despite these impressive 
statistics, women entrepreneurs have lower levels of available credit 
than their male counterparts, and minority businesswomen are less 
likely than Caucasians to have bank credit.
  The Women's Business Centers program and the National Women's 
Business Council help push the doors open. For example, in my home 
State of Massachusetts, the Center for Women and Enterprise has served 
1,200 women from a very wide spectrum of backgrounds, races, and 
ethnicities. Seventy percent of the Center's clients are single women, 
32 percent are women of color, 44 percent are in the very low- or low-
to-moderate income brackets. Sixty percent of these women are seeking 
to start their first businesses.
  Across the country, Women's Business Centers provide education, 
training, consulting, and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. 
There are Women's Business Centers in 46 States serving tens of 
thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large percentage of Center 
clients are women from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds who 
would be unable to start their own businesses without the assistance of 
a Women's Business Center.
  The Women's Business Centers' mission is empowerment. These centers

[[Page H4980]]

empower women by providing workshops and one-on-one consulting and 
mentoring for women business owners. Over the last 10 years, Women's 
Business Centers have assisted over 100,000 women entrepreneurs start 
or expand their businesses.
  Past estimates show the program has created on average one new 
business and four new jobs for every 10,000 investment. By helping 
women to help themselves, these centers are strengthening the economy 
by creating locally-owned businesses and jobs, and by reaching out to 
new markets and new entrepreneurs, these centers are helping to ensure 
that our business community reflects our Nation's diversity. Yet, in 
spite of this progress, there are significant numbers of women 
entrepreneurs waiting and in need of these services.
  Mr. Chairman, let me now just say a few words about the National 
Women's Business Council. The Council is a bipartisan Federal 
Government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of 
counsel to the President and to Congress of economic issues of 
importance to women business owners.
  The Council's goals include increasing access to capital and credit 
for women, increasing access to the Federal procurement market, 
strengthening the training and technical assistance networks, and 
facilitating alliances between policymakers and women business owners.
  In conclusion, let me just briefly give my colleagues a few facts 
about the offset for this amendment, which comes from the 
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, which is a program I 
support. Our $4.5 million amendment represents only 1.6 percent of this 
$282.5 million account. According to the committee report, this account 
is $72.5 million above the administration's request.

  Additionally, the House has already provided this $282.5 million in 
H.R. 3908, the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last 
March, and I am confident that the chairman of the Committee, with his 
powerful powers of persuasion, will insist that that stays in the bill. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of women's business and the McGovern, 
Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald amendment.
  I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman 
Rogers) for the hard work that he has dedicated to the people of the 
United States and to this legislation on the floor today. As a believer 
in fiscal responsibility, I understand that the appropriators have done 
the best that they could with the strict spending limits they have had 
to work within.
  Certain priorities were set within the committee. Funding was 
appropriated so that all of the pieces fit together. Unfortunately, the 
Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers and the 
National Women's Business Council were significantly underfunded.
  The amendment we are offering today would do the following. First, it 
would bring the Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to 
the authorized level of $13 million. Secondly, it would provide $1 
million as requested for the Small Business Administration's National 
Women's Business Council, an increase from its current level of 
$595,000.
  The offset for this increase comes from the Department of Justice's 
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The lion's share of this 
$282.5 million account is new funding to reimburse the 
telecommunications industry for costs associated with modifying their 
networks as required under the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA. The $282.5 million account is 
significantly above the administration's budgeted request.
  As I said earlier, I realize that there are very tight fiscal 
restraints in place. With that being said, it seems to make an enormous 
amount of sense to redirect to the Women's Business Center and National 
Women's Business Council approximately $4.5 million, and still give the 
Department of Justice a considerable amount above their request to pay 
for additional expenses related to CALEA.

                              {time}  1645

  Women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of all other 
businesses. In California alone, there are over 1.2 million women-owned 
businesses accounting for 38 percent of all firms in the State and 
employing 3.8 million people. However, they are not making comparable 
progress in respect to government contracts.
  The National Women's Business Council is a government advisory panel 
designed to provide counsel to the administration on ways that we can 
support our women entrepreneurs. By providing advice on ways to promote 
initiatives to encourage capital and credit access for women-owned 
businesses, to strengthen training and technical assistance networks, 
and to increase access to the Federal procurement market, we are 
helping women work towards economic independence.
  As we are seeing more and more women-owned enterprises developing 
across the country, we are also hearing about the difficulties 
associated with finding capital to strengthen and grow those 
businesses.
  The Women's Business Center is the place that women go to find the 
tools they need to overcome these hurdles. The Women's Business Centers 
provide education, consulting, and access to capital for our women 
entrepreneurs. I have heard from businesswomen all over the country how 
important the program is.
  Many of the women who are being impacted by these programs are from 
low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds. To their credit, they are 
doing exactly what has been preached in the halls of this very 
Congress. These women are taking responsibility for their lives and 
finding ways to contribute to their communities. The Women's Business 
Center and National Women's Business Council are essential in this 
progress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for women. 
It is good for our communities. It is certainly good for our economy.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the McGovern, 
Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Morella, Millender-McDonald, and 
Napolitano amendment. Now, that is a mouthful, but it is full of a lot 
of promise.
  This amendment will help the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in 
the United States which are currently generating over $3.6 trillion in 
sales and employing 27.5 million workers throughout this country, most 
of whom are a lot of the welfare-to-work mothers.
  This amendment will increase funding for the Women's Business Center 
program from $8.9 million to levels of $13 million this Congress 
authorized last year.
  This amendment will also increase funding for the National Women's 
Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Empowerment and author 
of a similar amendment in 1998, I urge my colleagues to join me again 
in ensuring that women business owners are given the opportunity they 
need to develop their businesses and continue to nurture the growth of 
our national economy.
  The Women's Business Centers, or WBCs, provide education, training, 
consulting and access to capital to women entrepreneurs. There are 50 
States that have WBCs with tens of thousands of entrepreneurs working 
each year. A large percentage of these WBC clients are women from low-
income disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their own 
businesses without the training provided through these centers.
  The reason the Committee on Small Business authorized the $13 million 
appropriation for this program is to ensure that, once the Centers are 
established, their success is not thwarted by a sudden loss in Federal 
funding. This appropriation is critical to ensuring that the Centers 
are given a more realistic time frame to establish their own private 
funding stream before the Federal funding source is completely 
eliminated.
  The National Women's Business Council is a Federal Government 
advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of advice and 
counsel to

[[Page H4981]]

the President and Congress on an economic issue of importance to women 
businesses and business owners.
  Since its inception in 1988, the NWBC has implemented countless 
programs to promote an environment which women-owned businesses can 
become an integral part of our national economy. The NWBC has worked 
tirelessly and effectively on increasing access to capital and credit, 
proving and improving opportunities for women in the Federal 
procurement market, strengthening the training and technical assistance 
networks, and facilitating alliances between policy makers and women 
business owners.
  The increased funding for the council is virtually needed to complete 
research projects, help reach the national procurement rate of 5 
percent for women-owned businesses, and continue the very successful 
venture capital training program.
  America's small business owners are the backbone of our economy and 
an indispensable part of this Nation's vigorous and continuous growth 
over the past several years. I have appreciated the support of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, in the past for their efforts to 
help women business owners, their leadership has made the difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill put together by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) and in support of the McGovern amendment. The 
amendment increases the funding for Women's Business Centers program 
and the Women's Business Council located within the Small Business 
Administration.
  Women's Business Centers play a major roll in empowering women 
entrepreneurs with the tools necessary to succeed in their business. 
Ninety-three sites in 50 States and territories tailor their services 
to the communities they serve. Many Centers target low-income women. 
The Centers assist women in focusing their business plans through 
courses and workshops. They provide information on access to financing 
and mentor services. Women's Business Centers contribute to the success 
of thousands of entrepreneurs, enhancing their management capacity, and 
offering critical community infrastructure necessary for fledgling 
businesses to operate within.
  During the course of the 106th Congress, the Committee on Small 
Business sought more information about the Women's Business Center 
program as we reconsidered its reauthorization. It soon became clear 
that, while the program was expanding around the country to States 
without Centers, existing sites were experiencing obstacles to their 
own growth.
  Women's Business Centers are granted Federal funds through Small 
Business Administration's Women's Business Center program. As women 
continue to launch businesses at twice the national rate, it is 
critical that the Women's Business Centers program be able to meet the 
demand of this dynamic market segment. The seed money they receive from 
their Federal grants has helped over 50,000 women start or expand their 
businesses.
  Some sites, particularly those located in rural areas, have limited 
access to foundations, corporations, and banks, which provide the 
private funds to match our Federal funds. This funding is desperately 
needed so that especially these centers struggling to reach the 
thousands of women seeking assistance are not forced to close.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also adds funding to the Women's 
Business Council. The NWBC was created by Congress to serve as an 
independent source of advice and counsel to the President and Congress 
on issues of importance to women entrepreneurs. The Council has 
provided the women's business community with a seat at the policy-
making table and has addressed cutting edge issues of access to capital 
that pose a challenge to women seeking to launch and grow their 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I support both of these programs vital to women 
entrepreneurs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
McGovern amendment which will expand funding for the Women's Business 
Center program and the National Business Council.
  I support this amendment because the Women's Business Center program 
works. By providing business assistance to women, particularly 
financially disadvantaged women, these programs help them become full 
partners in economic development through small business ownership. This 
program works nationally, and I have seen it work in my home State of 
Wisconsin, specifically at the Western Dairyland Women's Business 
Center in the Third Congressional District in Western Wisconsin.
  We know that women-owned businesses are growing at twice the rate of 
all other businesses. Not only does the Women's Business Center program 
help women to take a great idea and turn it into a business, but these 
centers provide the tools needed to make that investment a sound one. 
With business training, marketing classes, and counseling on the 
pressures of running a business, their clients are more prepared than 
most to have a successful start.
  In Wisconsin, women-owned businesses employ over 5,000 people and 
generate nearly $70 billion in sales. Statewide, women are gaining the 
knowledge and the tools to enter into fields that until now have been 
dominated just by men. Thanks to programs like the Women's Business 
Center, in less than 10 years, we have seen more than a 60 percent 
increase of women in agriculture. Over the same period, there has been 
more than 75 percent increase of women-owned construction companies and 
nearly 60 percent increase in manufacturing firms owned by women.
  Specifically, in the Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, I 
have seen firsthand the positive results of the Women's Business 
Center. Appropriately, the Center is located in rural Independence, 
Wisconsin, and independence is just what the Center provides for many 
women in Western Wisconsin by providing microloan programs, marketing 
assistance, Internet training, and much more. Women are realizing their 
goals by starting and expanding their own businesses.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a letter that was sent to 
the Western Dairyland's Women's Business Center in Independence, 
Wisconsin.
  I quote, ``Just a quick note to express my gratitude for all that you 
have done and continue to do in working with me to establish a sound 
business plan. I can't express to you how much this has helped me, not 
only getting the financial situation in order, but the mental support 
as well.
  ``You have lifted my spirits 100 percent. One year ago, I was 
probably one of the most depressed single parents out there, but with 
setting my mind to what I know I can do, and the support of the 
organization aspects you have provided, I feel so much stronger and 
secure with myself and with what I intended to accomplish.
  ``Whenever I tell people about this program, I speak very highly of 
it and how I think it is very beneficial to anyone who may be engaged 
in entrepreneurship. Thanks again for all the hard work and 
encouragement.''
  Success stories like this are not the exception but the rule for the 
Women's Business Centers across the Nation. Despite all of these 
successes, however, many of the Centers, including the one in my 
district, are facing serious cutbacks in funding. As a result, 
reductions in staff and resources are happening nationwide. The $4.5 
million would bring the Women's Business Center program to its 
authorized level of $13 million and increased business opportunities 
for women across the units.
  I believe it is a worthy program, and that is why I am urging my 
colleagues today to support the McGovern amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There are a lot of 
cosponsors to the McGovern, Johnson, Udall, Bono, Sanders, Millender-
McDonald, Baldacci amendment.

[[Page H4982]]

  This amendment would serve the very critical purpose of funding the 
Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers program to its 
authorized level and the National Women's Business Council to its 
requested level, a total of $4.5 million. Through these programs, the 
Small Business Administration has dedicated itself to reaching and 
surpassing the 5 percent procurement goal for Federal contracts, 
government contracts given to small women-owned businesses as 
established by Congress in the Federal Streamlining Act of 1994.
  The Women's Business Centers provide counseling and training to start 
up and establish women entrepreneurs. Programming at the Women's 
Business Centers is unique because it is designed locally by women to 
meet the needs of the local community.
  Currently, there are 93 Women's Business Centers in 46 States, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin 
Islands. These Centers service the fastest growing portion of the 
business community as women-owned businesses are growing roughly two 
times as fast as all other businesses.
  As of 1999, there were 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the 
United States generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and employing 
27.5 million workers.
  Furthermore, one in eight of these businesses is owned by a woman of 
color, making women of color the fastest growing segment of women-owned 
businesses. In Maryland alone, there are over 193,000 women-owned 
businesses accounting for 40 percent of all firms in the State. 
Unfortunately, even with this tremendous growth, the current rate of 
government contract procurement for women-owned businesses is a mere 
2.4 percent.
  The National Women's Business Council serves a different role. It 
fosters the success of women entrepreneurs. It is a bipartisan Federal 
Government advisory panel that acts as an independent source of advice 
and counsel to the President and to Congress on economic issues of 
importance to women-owned businesses.

                              {time}  1700

  The Council has been at the forefront of advocating for greater 
access to financing and contracting opportunities.
  In 1997, I successfully nominated Laura Henderson, the founder, 
president and CEO of Prospect Associates, and one of my constituents, 
to the National Women's Business Council. I have known Laura now for 
more than 15 years through her successful business ventures in 
Montgomery County, Maryland, and her visionary work in procurement 
issues. Laura recently testified in support of the National Women's 
Business Council before the House Subcommittee on Government Programs 
and Oversight of the Committee on Small Business.
  At the conclusion of her testimony, Laura stated, ``The Council's 
actions have been fundamental to the expansion and recognition of 
women-owned businesses as an integral force in the economy. The Council 
has been the catalyst for making our dreams a reality.''
  I urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment and for the 
dreams of women entrepreneurs in America. There is an ever-growing need 
for women-owned business assistance in every congressional district. 
Although women entrepreneurs have come a long way over the last decade, 
they still face barriers in the marketplace. It is our responsibility 
as legislators to make sure these barriers are not impregnable.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  My colleagues, I rise, as have my other colleagues, to speak in 
support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  As a small business owner, and as a Member serving on the Committee 
on Small Business, I have long recognized that the Women's Business 
Centers Program meets a very, very fast growing need, and that is to 
help women succeed as entrepreneurs in the global economy.
  Our women business owners need help. They need access to capital, 
they need counseling, they need assistance in being able to identify 
foreign markets, they need help in being able to access Federal 
procurement. They need help, and we can provide that help with this 
additional money. Although the $8 million initially proposed was 
increased to $11 million during committee work, and we now are planning 
to add an additional $4 million, it is still a drop in the bucket to 
what can be of very great assistance to the women who are fast not only 
becoming the greatest number of business owners but also the ones that 
are providing the largest number of jobs in the United States for our 
working class.
  Many of my colleagues have already identified that nearly 9.11 
million women-owned businesses operate in the United States, 1.2 alone 
in California. They generate in excess of 3.6 trillion, not million, 
not billion, but trillion dollars, and employ millions of workers, more 
than are employed in all the Fortune 500 industrial firms. These women 
are not only talented, they are full of ambition and have the drive and 
the zeal to be able to become successful and continue operating and 
expanding their businesses.
  It is important to note that these business centers are the fastest 
growing portion of all business communities; and they are growing, as 
my colleagues have heard, twice as fast as all other businesses. We 
should be granting them not $4 million but ten times that for these 
marvelous hard-working successful women. These few centers have helped 
2,000 women a month, about 50,000 women total, starting or expanding 
their businesses. Our past estimates show that the program created, on 
the average, again we heard these statistics, one new business and four 
new jobs for every $10,000 invested in them. What an investment.
  On the natural, women are handicapped. Banks do not loan to women 
easily, or as easily as their male counterparts. So we need to help 
them become successful by helping them with their business plans and 
being able to pattern and plan for them.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not now the time for us to turn our backs on 
women who want to succeed, who can succeed, and who will succeed, with 
our modest assistance with this increase. I urge support for the 
McGovern amendment, and I urge my colleagues to consider that women-
owned businesses are no longer the typical type of business. They are 
builders, they make airplane parts, they are the independent truck 
drivers, they run computer schools, and they have foster family 
agencies, just to name a few of the entrepreneurs in my area.
  Again, I urge this House to consider supporting the McGovern 
amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which 
increases the bill's funding for the Small Business Administration's 
Women's Business Centers Program to the authorizing committee's full 
authorization of $13 million, and provides the President's budget 
request of $1 million for the National Women's Business Council.
  Two years ago this body agreed to an amendment that my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and I offered to double 
funding for the Women's Business Centers. This increase in funding 
doubled the size and scope of the Women's Business Centers Program, 
increasing the number of Women's Business Centers throughout the 
country to 92 centers, including one in my home State of Vermont.
  The Women's Business Centers offer financial management, marketing, 
and technical assistance to current and potential women business 
owners. Each center tailors its style and offerings to the particular 
needs of its community. More importantly, the Women's Business Centers 
target economically disadvantaged women and areas of high unemployment. 
This program has had significant results.
  Over the last 10 years, Women's Business Centers have served over 
100,000 women entrepreneurs throughout the U.S. start and expand their 
businesses. As of 1999, there are nearly 34,000 women-owned businesses 
in Vermont, accounting for 40 percent of all firms in the State. 
Between 1992 and 1999, the number of women-owned businesses in Vermont 
increased by 50 percent, accounting for the creation of 47,000 new jobs 
in the State and $195 million in sales.

[[Page H4983]]

  Women-owned businesses are thriving nationwide. Employment growth in 
women-owned businesses exceeds the national average in nearly every 
region of the country and in nearly every major industry. Between 1987 
and 1996, the number of firms owned by women grew by 78 percent, which 
is almost twice the rate of increase in the number of all U.S. firms. 
Between these years virtually all new jobs were generated by small 
businesses. As large companies continued to downsize and fires exceeded 
hires, small businesses with less than 19 employees generated about 77 
percent of the net new jobs.
  If provided the funding, the SBA's Women's Business Centers can help 
level the playing field for women entrepreneurs who still face unique 
obstacles in the world of business. WBCs have programs to help women 
break into the Federal procurement and export markets.
  While women entrepreneurs are expanding at the foreign markets at the 
same rate as all U.S. business owners, women-owned businesses receive 
less than 8.8 percent of the more than $200 billion in Federal contract 
awards. The President recently ordered all Federal departments and 
agencies to grant at least 5 percent of all prime contracts and 
subcontract awards to women-owned businesses.
  Fully funding the National Women's Business Council, the bipartisan 
advisory panel that provides independent advice to the Federal 
Government on these issues, is crucial to accomplishing this goal, and 
I hope very much that we will pass this amendment.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the McGovern amendment and strongly 
support this effort to bring the Women's Business Centers Program up to 
its authorized level of $13 million and to meet the President's request 
of $1 million for the National Women's Business Council.
  I would like to congratulate the ranking member for his leadership 
and also like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
for developing such a broad-based bipartisan amendment to address this 
very pressing issue.
  Women's Business Centers play a major role in helping women 
entrepreneurs by providing technical assistance in the formation of 
their business plans through courses, workshops, mentoring services, 
and access to financing. The additional funding made through this 
amendment will strengthen those centers and make centers available to 
more women. I have a center in my district in Lewiston, Maine, which is 
a vital source of information, outreach, and access to financing that 
has really spurred a lot of women-owned businesses to be developed just 
in the short time that it has been there.
  The National Women's Business Council makes recommendations and 
provides advice to the President and Congress on issues of economic 
importance to women. The additional funding through this amendment will 
help the NWBC. It will be able to support new research; create a State 
Council Program to help in the development of women's business advisory 
councils, summits and an interstate communications network; promote 
more outreach initiatives for securing Federal procurement contracts; 
and provide additional support for training, technical assistance, and 
mentoring.
  The additional funding provided through this amendment will go a long 
way towards creating a more level playing field for women business 
owners. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment. I support the 
work the SBA does to help women start and maintain small businesses. In 
fact, the bill includes funding for both the Women's Business Centers 
and the Women's Business Council at the current year levels. In fact, 
over the last 2 years, we have more than doubled the amount provided 
for Women's Business Centers. So this activity has enjoyed tremendous 
growth while a lot of other programs funded in this bill have remained 
stagnant, frozen, at current levels.
  The only reservation that I have on the amendment is the offset 
because the offset comes from the CALEA fund. And as all of us realize, 
this so-called CALEA fund, telecommunications carrier compliance fund, 
called CALEA, is the fund out of which we must pay the expenses of 
equipping our telephone systems so that the court-ordered wiretaps, the 
law enforcement activities, can continue. It is absolutely critical 
funding, and I am concerned about where the offset comes. But perhaps 
we can find some way to remedy that.
  So I would accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman; and I would call for a 
vote.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the 
McGovern amendment which supports one of the most dynamic and vital 
segments of our society: women entrepreneurs.
  Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing businesses in our 
country. In fact, those businesses owned by women of color are growing 
three times faster than the overall business growth rate. It is 
imperative that we do all we can to assist their efforts to run 
successful businesses.
  This amendment brings additional funding to the Women's Business 
Center Program and the National Women's Business Council.
  The Women's Business Center Program provides assistance to tens of 
thousands of women entrepreneurs in all 50 states, giving preference to 
those women from disadvantaged backgrounds.
  In the next fiscal year, the Women's Business Center Program is 
authorized to receive $13 million. This amendment ensure that the 
program receives all of those funds as opposed to the current 
appropriation of a mere $8.9 million. Fully funding the program ensures 
that it reaches the largest number of people with maximum 
effectiveness.
  Another way we can assure that women entrepreneurs are successful is 
to support the National Women's Business Council, which is dedicated to 
researching effective business strategies. The Council serves to help 
women find sources of capital for the businesses. Additional, the 
Council provide private and public sector professional training for 
women entrepreneurs.
  Our funding increase provides for another important function of the 
Council: to aid state and local organizations in helping women 
entrepreneurs. This means that women can access information, which is 
relevant to their regions. In other words, this is money well spent.
  The Council studies what works and what doesn't. It lets us learn the 
most effective way to help women start their own businesses. It's 
objective is to make women entrepreneurs successful.
  The Council however, is only slated to receive 60 percent of its 
authorized funding. This amendment provides the full funding--$1 
million. This is the sum the President has put in his budget for the 
Council. Full funding will allow the council to carry out its tasks of 
researching effective business strategies for the 9.1 million women-
owned businesses across the country who employ over 27.5 million 
workers and generate $3.6 trillion in revenues. It is in the best 
interest of the country to ensure that these businesses are as 
efficient and successful as can be.
  As our ``New Economy'' continues its progress, so does the discussion 
about creating job growth. This amendment will allow for necessary 
programs to continue providing job training to these entrepreneurs. The 
end result will be the creation of jobs for those who need it most--
women, minorities, and the economically disadvantaged. Letting women 
create their own businesses in depressed areas benefits everyone.
  Let me turn my attention to the offset for a second. Our amendment 
takes approximately $4.5 million from the Department of Justice's. 
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. Let me say that our $4.5 
million represents only 1.6 percent of the $282.5 million TCCF account.
  Let's think about this for a second. 1.6 percent to assist the 
growing 9.1 million women-owned businesses in this country.
  I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a strong 
investment.
  Mr. Chairman, thousands of women across the country are eager to 
start successful businesses. We must help these women to help 
themselves--by providing classes, training, proven expertise, and 
improved access to funding. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and ensure that these vital programs are fully functional and 
effective.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
McGovern/Johnson/Udall/Bono/Sanders/Morella/Millender-McDonald 
amendment. This amendment would increase funding for the National 
Women's Business Center Program from $8.9 million to the

[[Page H4984]]

authorized level of $13 million and would increase funding for the 
National Women's Business Council from $595,000 to $1 million dollars. 
These funds would provide much needed funds to help secure venture 
capital, reach the national procurement rate of five percent for women-
owned business and complete research projects.
  The National Women's Business Council, is a bi-partisan Federal 
government advisory panel which serves as an independent source of 
advice and counsel to the President, the Congress, and the Interagency 
Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. It advises on economic issues 
of importance to women business owners.
  The Council and the Interagency Committee have established an 
effective public/private sector partnership to promote an economic 
environment conducive to business growth and development for women-
owned businesses and have focused on expanding opportunities, 
collecting research, strengthening technical assistance and the 
networking infrastructure, and improving access to capital.
  Although women-owned businesses are among the fastest growing 
business sectors, women's access to capital continues to lag behind 
men. Currently, over 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the U.S. 
generate over $3.6 trillion in sales and employ 27.5 million workers. 
Women's Business Centers offer training and counseling programs 
designed to educate, empower, and assist individuals in improving their 
lives through entrepreneurship.
  In the Eleventh Congressional District, the Glenville Development 
Corporation provides long-term training to low and moderate-income 
women to assist them in business development. The organization 
W.O.M.E.N. (Women's Organization for Mentoring, Entrepreneurship, & 
Networking) in Akron, Ohio, also provides services to the Eleventh 
Congressional District. These centers have provided essential support 
for many women entrepreneurs which would not otherwise be accessible. 
With the funding offered in this amendment, the centers' good work, and 
the work of many other organizations will be able to continue. I urge 
strong support of this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bipartisan McGovern/
Johnson/Udall/Bono/Sanders/Morella/Millender-McDonald amendment that 
would add $4.5 million to programs supporting Women's Entrepreneurship. 
This amendment would increase $4.1 million for SBA's Women's Business 
Center Program to its fully authorized $13 million and would increase 
$405,000 for SBA's National Women's Business Council to President 
Clinton's requested $1 million.
  These programs are important to women around the country and in the 
district I represent. Recently, I heard from Ms. Claudia Viek, who runs 
the Renaissance Women's Business Center in San Francisco. She was 
concerned about cuts to SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership and 
its adverse impact on the Renaissance Center which has sustained a 7 
percent funding cut and, without this amendment, would experience 
deeper cuts. Since 1985, this Center has been successfully fulfilling 
its mission ``to empower and increase the entrepreneurial capabilities 
of socially and economically diverse people'' and providing practical 
training in business planning, financial assistance, and ongoing 
supportive networks for its graduates.
  I have also heard from Barbara Johnson and Mercedes Sansores with 
``Women's Initiative for Self Employment''. These women were also 
concerned about funding levels for SBA's Office of Women's Business 
Ownership and urged me to support this amendment. Women's Initiative is 
a private, non-profit organization founded in 1988 to help low-income 
women start and manage their own businesses. It makes loans to support 
its client's entrepreneurship. Women's Initiative offers business 
training and technical assistance, in English and Spanish, on business 
planning, marketing, sales, and finance. ALAS is the Initiative's 
Spanish-language training program that delivers important services to 
the local community.
  Together these Centers provide significant resources and training to 
businesswomen. They are simply two examples of the many Centers around 
the nation. In fact, as we travel, we could find Women's Business 
Centers in 46 states and territories. Clearly, this program benefits 
women around the country. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern 
amendment and support increased business opportunities for women.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his time. The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   administrative review and appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration related activities, 
     $159,570,000.

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern at the lack of 
funding that the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative received in 
the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriation bill.
  Under the House bill, the initiative received zero funding: zero 
funding for tribal courts, zero funding for COPS grant set-aside for 
Indians, and zero funding for the new programs proposed by the 
administration. I have been advised that the reason the initiative 
received zero funding in the House is because the Senate will take care 
of funding the initiative. I find this logic troublesome.
  Recently, I, along with several of my colleagues, sent a letter to 
the chairman and senior Democratic member of the subcommittee 
expressing our strong support for the President's fiscal year 2001 
budget request for the Department of Justice portion of the Indian 
Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The President's budget requested 
$173.3 million for the initiative. This figure represents an increase 
of $81.8 million above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
  I believe that increased funding for this initiative is critical in 
light of the recent information from the Justice Department that 
confirms that while national crime is dropping, crime rates on Indian 
lands continue to rise. In its 1999 report, American Indians and Crime, 
the Bureau of Justice statistics found that American Indians and Alaska 
natives have the highest crime victimization rates in the Nation, 
almost twice the rate of the Nation as a whole.
  The report revealed that violence against American Indian women is 
higher than other groups. American Indians suffer the Nation's highest 
rate of child abuse. The report indicates that Indian juveniles in 
Federal custody increased by 50 percent since 1994. The findings for 
this report serve as the basis for the President's request for more 
funding for this initiative.
  I also support the President's request to make permanent the Office 
of Tribal Justice under the Department of Justice's Associate Attorney 
General's Office. The Attorney General created this office to provide a 
permanent channel for tribal governments to communicate their concerns 
to the Department and to coordinate policy on Indian Affairs with the 
departments in other Federal agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice and the Department of the 
Interior developed the initiative 2 years ago to improve the public 
safety and criminal justice in Indian communities. Last year, Congress 
appropriated $91.2 million to the Justice Department for additional FBI 
agents, tribal law enforcement officers, detention centers, juvenile 
crime programs, and tribal courts.

                              {time}  1715

  This year the House provided zero funding for the initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to work to restore funding and to 
provide the necessary increase for the initiative as this bill proceeds 
to conference. Let us work hard to combat crime and violence in our 
Indian lands.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                           detention trustee

       For necessary expenses to establish a Federal Detention 
     Trustee who shall exercise all power and functions authorized 
     by law relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-
     Federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the 
     United States Marshals Service; and the detention of aliens 
     in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     $1,000,000: Provided, That the Trustee shall be responsible 
     for construction of detention facilities or for housing 
     related to such detention; the management of funds 
     appropriated to the Department for the exercise of any 
     detention functions; and the direction of the United States 
     Marshals Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     with respect to the exercise of detention policy setting and 
     operations for the Department.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $41,825,000; including not to exceed 
     $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
     character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney 
     General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and 
     operation of motor vehicles, without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.

[[Page H4985]]

                    United States Parole Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized by law, $8,855,000.

                            Legal Activities


            salaries and expenses, General Legal Activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $523,228,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this 
     appropriation, not to exceed $18,877,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for office automation systems for 
     the legal divisions covered by this appropriation, and for 
     the United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Community 
     Relations Service, and offices funded through ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'', General Administration: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be 
     available to the United States National Central Bureau, 
     INTERPOL, for official reception and representation expenses.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Serrano

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano:
       Page 6, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $11,772,000)''.
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $16,000,000)''.

  Mr. SERRANO (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 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer will fund the 
requested level for the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. It 
provides a total of $11,772,000, offset by $16 million from Federal 
Prisoner Detention, which will still leave an increase of $56 million 
or more than 10 percent over the current level.
  The Civil Rights Division is the primary institution within the 
Federal Government responsible for enforcing Federal statutes that 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, 
religion, and national origin.
  In the reported bill, the Division would receive only part of its 
request for inflationary adjustments, less than the other Justice 
Department components are being given, and no funding for its 
initiatives.
  My amendment would restore the adjustments and further permit the 
Division to pursue its initiatives. It would increase the number of 
attorneys and support staff first, to enhance its ability to 
investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute criminal civil rights 
violations in the areas of hate crimes, violations under color of law, 
and violence against health care providers;
  Second, to increase its ability to promote compliance with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act in employment cases and certifying that 
State and local building codes meet ADA requirements by providing 
outreach to help small businesses and law enforcement agencies meet ADA 
requirements and by ensuring that persons confined in public 
institutions have adequate mental health services;
  Third, to combat abusive, discriminatory, and other unconstitutional 
action by law enforcement officials through ``pattern or practice'' 
investigations of specific law enforcement agencies and the related 
suits and settlements that implement remedies;
  Fourth, to combat abuse and neglect in institutions, protect the 
rights of nursing home residents and youth in juvenile detention 
facilities, and address the mental health needs of individuals in 
correctional and health care facilities;
  Fifth, of particular interest to many Members, to review 
redistricting submissions and other voting changes as required by the 
Voting Rights Act, following the 200 decennial census; and
  Sixth, to expand programs that protect basic civil rights, including 
fighting employment discrimination and in-school segregation, providing 
training in certain civil rights-related legal requirements and 
investigative techniques to Federal, State, and local agencies, and 
supporting fair lending laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment because it is very 
difficult to understand why during such a good economic period as we 
are going through in this country right now anyone would think of 
cutting the enforcement of civil rights.
  At this point, perhaps more than ever before in recent history, as we 
are doing better, we need to certainly make sure that we protect those 
who may be powerless in this society so that we can share in the wealth 
and share in the law and share in all that is good about this country.
  So I would hope that people see it in this spirit, see it as in 
relationship to everything else that is happening in our society, and 
understand that the worst thing we could do, the most difficult thing 
that we would not face up to is the fact that we would allow during 
these times for people to continue to be hurt and not to be protected.
  These dollars would allow the Civil Rights Division to go out and do 
the job that it has to do and, in the process, provide for the 
protection that all Americans need.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, over the last few years, the 
Civil Rights Division has been treated very generously. In fact, 
funding for the Civil Rights Division has increased by over 32 percent 
over the last 2 years. Few other agencies in this bill have enjoyed 
similar growth.
  We have tried to maintain the investment we have made in the Civil 
Rights Division, as we have done for other programs in this bill. In 
addition, this bill also provides increases to other civil agencies 
that are included in the bill.
  So, in view of the fact that we do have the fiscal restraints that we 
are operating under, this division has enjoyed generous growth at the 
hands of this subcommittee and the Congress over the last 2 years. I 
would urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
the ranking subcommittee member, for his leadership in this measure.
  The vote on this amendment, my colleagues, will define the agenda of 
the majority party. Is it to ensure that all Americans have an equal 
opportunity in this country, or is it to prevent that from happening?
  The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is the most important 
weapon we have to fight for equal opportunity through its investigation 
and prosecution of criminal civil violations, violations of the fair 
housing and lending laws, employment discrimination, and other civil 
rights abuses.
  Unfortunately, the majority has consistently underfunded this office. 
Why? This year the administration has asked for $97.9 million and is 
getting only $86 million from this bill, and this is in the midst of a 
$200 billion budget surplus.
  That is the wrong message to send to the American people about the 
importance of civil rights. This amendment can fix this by fully 
funding the Division with an additional $11.8 million.
  Now, in the past few years, the Civil Rights Division has been more 
important than ever in pursuing criminal civil rights abuses. The 
Nation has experienced the horrors of the torture and deaths of Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, and the murder of a reproductive health care 
provider, Dr. Bernard Slepian.
  More recently, four New York City police officers killed Amadou 
Diallo, an unarmed immigrant, in the lobby of an apartment building; 
and another four officers brutally assaulted Abner Louima. These are 
just a few of the cases that the Division is reviewing.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation stated that there are 10,461 law 
enforcement agencies across the United States reporting a staggering 
total of 8,049 hate crimes in 1998 alone. These are conservative 
numbers, though because the truth is many hate crimes go unreported 
because the victims fear retaliation and many police departments just 
do not collect such data.
  Now, while law enforcement offices and agencies pursue the bulk of 
the offenders, the Justice Department must train those agencies and 
prosecute

[[Page H4986]]

those offenders. The local officials cannot. With added funding, the 
Civil Rights Division can hire five, just five, more lawyers and assure 
that many of these perpetrators are brought to justice.
  Three prominent civil rights groups, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the 
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, have pointed out in a 
letter to the House that one of the most pressing issues for many 
Americans is that of police misconduct.
  The Department has investigated the police departments of Washington 
D.C., New York City, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, and many others for 
numerous offenses, including excessive force. Prior investigations have 
led to consent decrees with local police departments, including 
Steubenville, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for using excessive 
force and improper searches.
  In December 1988, the Justice Department was conducting six public 
investigations with eight attorneys throughout the country. And in 
December 1999, the Department was investigating at least 12 police 
departments with just the same number of attorneys as the previous 
year.
  We cannot expect the Department to increase its workload in this 
manner without adding additional resources. And so, this amendment 
would permit the Division to hire three much-needed attorneys to 
prosecute police misconduct.
  And so, my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano-
Conyers amendment. It adds modest funding to the Civil Rights Division.
  Mr. Chairman, all to often the majority gives our Nation's civil 
rights laws mere lip service--offering us civil rights on the cheap. 
The budget before us today confirms my worst fears. If you look at the 
actual evidence in critical areas such as hate crimes, police 
misconduct, employment, and housing you will see that there is 
overwhelming evidence of ongoing discrimination in our society. Yet the 
budget actually under funds the critical civil rights division to the 
tune of $11 million.
  Consider the problem in hate crimes. Our Nation has only recently 
began the healing process in the aftermath of the tortures and deaths 
of James Byrd, Jr., and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. In the 
years 1991 through 1997 there were more than 50,000 hate crimes 
reported. This is why the Conyers-Serrano amendment would allow the 
Division to hire five new attorneys to help prosecute hate crimes and 
other civil rights crimes.
  The incidence of police misconduct toward minorities is also growing 
dramatically. In Pittsburgh, a police officer shot to death a black 
motorist who had slowed down and peered through his side window while 
observing a drug arrest. In Riverside, California, a 19-year-old black 
woman was shot to death by a policeman in her car at a gas station. And 
we all know that Amadou Diallo, a West African immigrant, was shot 41 
times in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment by four police officers. 
At a time when the Civil Rights Division is on the verge of being 
totally overwhelmed, our amendment would also allow the Division to 
retain three additional attorneys to fight against police ``pattern and 
practice'' misconduct.
  The problem with regard to employment and housing discrimination is 
no better. The number of employment discrimination cases in Federal 
courts has almost tripled between 1990 and 1998 from 8,413 complaints 
to 23,735. The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission recently found that 
95 percent of top corporate jobs in America are held by white males, 
with African-Americans holding less than 1 percent of top management 
jobs, and women holding 3-5 percent of senior level positions. Just 
recently we learned of outrageous discriminatory conduct at Texaco 
Corp., including tapes of top management officials referring to 
African-American workers as ``black jelly beans.''
  In terms of housing, tester programs by the Urban Institute and 
others confirm that whites are far more likely to be shown apartment 
and other rental units than similarly situated minorities. And it was 
only a few years ago that an elderly African-American man was literally 
chased out of his apartment in Vidor, Texas, after he had moved there 
pursuant to a Federal court order requiring that the all-white housing 
complex in that city be desegregated. This is why our amendment 
provides the funds to hire 13 additional civil rights attorneys.
  I believe this is the most important amendment we will vote on today. 
The Serrano-Conyers amendment has the support of the NAACP, the ACLU, 
and every major ciivl rights group in the country. We have a choice--we 
can claim to be opposed to discrimination, or we can put our money 
where our mouth is, and fund the fight against discrimination. I urge a 
yes vote.
  I submit the following letter for the Record.

         American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of 
           Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Association 
           for the Advancement of Colored People
                                                    June 22, 2000.
     Members, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: During consideration of the fiscal 
     year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, 
     Congressmen Jose Serrano (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) will 
     offer an amendment to strengthen the Department of Justice's 
     Civil Rights enforcement abilities. This will be achieved by 
     increasing the Department's Civil Rights Division's funding 
     by $11.8 million, thus bringing it in line with the 
     President's budget request. We, the undersigned national 
     civil rights organizations, strongly support the Serrano/
     Conyers Civil Rights Enforcement amendment and urge to you to 
     vote for it when it comes before you on the floor of the 
     House.
       One of the most pressing issues for many Americans, 
     especially those of us of color, is that of police 
     misconduct. Throughout history, Americans of color have been 
     disproportionately subjected to abuse and misconduct by law 
     enforcement officers at all levels of government. Because the 
     problems of abuse and racial bias still exist today, we 
     strongly support this effort by Congressmen Serrano and 
     Conyers to provide additional funding to the U.S. Department 
     of Justice's Civil Rights Division so that it may continue to 
     try to address some of the more serious problems facing our 
     nation today.
       Specifically, the Serrano/Conyers amendment would allow the 
     Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to hire 3 more 
     attorneys to fight police ``pattern and practice'' 
     misconduct. In recent years, this division has been 
     successful in fighting wide-spread police misconduct in 
     Steubenville, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Current 
     investigations are on-going in New York, Los Angeles, and 
     Washington, D.C., to name a few. Given the national epidemic 
     of police misconduct, and the fact that more and more 
     citizens are coming forward, the additional slots 
     appropriated by the Serrano/Conyers amendment are clearly and 
     sorely needed.
       The Serrano/Conyers amendment would also allow the Civil 
     Rights Division to hire 5 new attorneys to prosecute criminal 
     violations of existing civil rights laws, including hate 
     crimes, color of law violations and violence directed toward 
     health care providers. In addition to the several well 
     publicized cases of hate crimes against people because of 
     their race or sexual orientation in recent years, the FBI has 
     stated that there were over 8,000 reported hate crimes in the 
     United States in 1998; the actual number may well be double 
     or triple that amount. With the additional funding sought in 
     this amendment, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights 
     Division can play a more aggressive role in assuring that the 
     perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to justice.
       Finally, the Serrano/Conyers amendment also provides money 
     for 12 new attorneys to enforce the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act, 5 new attorneys to enforce the Voting 
     Rights Act, 2 new positions to fight abuse and neglect in 
     institutions, and 13 new attorney positions to enhance the 
     Justice Department's fight against discrimination in mortgage 
     lending, in-school segregation and employment. As numerous 
     studies, including one by the Eisenhower Foundation, have 
     shown, these slots are very much needed as discriminatin is 
     alive and well in all of these areas. The number of 
     employment discrimination cases in Federal courts has almost 
     tripled between 1990 and 1998; and the United States has had 
     the most rapid growth in wage inequality in the Western 
     world, with racial minorities suffering disproportionately
       In short, we strongly support the Serrano/Conyers amendment 
     as it addresses many of the issues of discrimination and 
     abuse that hold this nation back from realizing its full 
     potential. We hope that you will support Congressmen Serrano 
     and Conyers in their effort and vote in favor of their 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Laura Murphy,
       Director, Washington Office, American Civil Liberties 
     Union.
     Karen Narasaki,
       Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People.

  Mr. Chairman, I also wish to bring our attention to a great injustice 
that we are about to commit. It would be a grave oversight if the 
Member's of this House forgot those who have been the most neglected. 
Our obligations to the Native American people of this country are 
ignored in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill. The 
President has requested $173.3 million to provide for the Deptartment

[[Page H4987]]

of Justice's portion of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. 
The House has seen fit to provide H.R. 4690 with no money for Tribal 
Courts, no money for COPS grants for tribes, no money for any new or 
existing programs, no money for tribal law enforcement programs.
  Native Americans and Native American programs have suffered at our 
hands for many years. This year nearly $200 million of vital funds have 
been slashed from Indian Health Services. Native Americans, the poorest 
of the poor, suffer disproportionate rates of poverty and poverty 
related illnesses such as diabetes, and we have seen fit to cut funding 
for services to those who so desperately need them, the chronically 
ill. Now we in the House have provided no funding for vital law 
enforcement programs, programs which we ensure are funded fully for our 
own communities. Once again we are turning our back on the indigenous 
people's of the United States. People whom we have given our word to, 
by treaty, to be provided for and protected by our Federal Government. 
And yet we, in the great Federal Government and our infinite wisdom, 
have turned our backs on them, yet again.
  Mr. Chairman, crimes rates in Indian Country have not dropped as they 
have in the rest of the country. Yet we have not provided any 
assistance to Native Americans to help them, help themselves, to make 
their homes and communities safer places to live. By relying on our 
friends in the Senate to give what we have not seen fit to give, we 
shirk our own responsibility to a great people and to the great nation 
in which they live.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Conyers amendment and 
applaud them for this work and add my strong support and interest in 
this area.
  As offered, H.R. 4690 cuts the funding requested by the Civil Rights 
Division by $11.8 million. This is a 12-percent reduction and provides 
a budget that is $3 million below what is necessary to fight for the 
Nation's civil rights.
  A person's civil rights are his or her most precious assets in 
America. It is the right of equality and the right to access the courts 
and to establish the laws of the land and be protected by those laws. 
It is these rights that help us to establish that we all are created 
equal and are equal in the eyes of the American legal system.
  The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is responsible for 
the fair and uniform enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws. 
Inadequate funding will ultimately lead to inadequate enforcement of 
these laws.
  The reduced funding will deny requested initiatives to expand the 
Civil Rights Division's investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
  Two years have passed since the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr., on 
a paved road in Jasper, Texas. We cannot forget the injustice brought 
on Mr. Byrd as he was chained and dragged to the back of the truck by 
his white assailants and dragged over 2 miles until many of his body 
parts were torn from his body. Not only was he brutally murdered, but 
his civil rights were denied.
  It is important that the Justice Department and the Civil Rights 
Division can be aggressive in its fight against hatred and 
discrimination and, as well, the treatment of violence against someone 
because they are different or have a different view.
  Soon we will arrive at the anniversary of the Benjamin Nathaniel 
Smith Fourth of July raid through Illinois and Indiana, where he 
murdered and injured innocent people.

                              {time}  1730

  He perpetrated these crimes because of the difference in those 
citizens' religious beliefs or the color of their skin. These are but 
two examples of the many hate crimes that warrant adequate funding to 
the Civil Rights Division. Reduced funding will hinder the Division's 
efforts to carry out pattern and practice investigations and combat 
incidents of police misconduct. We know that many minorities are 
targeted by law enforcement for no other reason than their race. 
Oftentimes people are stopped for no crime other than driving while 
black or brown. With this understanding, we must entertain the 
question, what security is available to the people of America when law 
enforcement is not pledged to adhere to the civil rights of all of us?
  The Justice Department is an important element of fighting against 
that discrimination. As representatives in the Federal Government, we 
must live up to our duty to provide the best possible life for 
America's people. This duty includes providing protection from unjust 
discrimination. This duty includes providing a remedy when such 
discrimination takes place. This duty also includes adequately funding 
our government agency responsible for living up to this most important 
governmental function.
  It is important to restore the $11 million back to this appropriation 
for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division because we must 
remember that there are still fights to prevent gerrymandering and to 
prevent the days of Jim Crow from returning. The year 2000 is a census 
year and next year we will be dealing with different issues under the 
Voter Rights Act of 1965.
  Inadequate funding will hinder the Civil Rights Division's 
responsibility to assist in the review of redistricting and other 
changes as required by the Voter Rights Act. We must ensure that 
everyone is represented and every vote is a single vote to be 
represented in the halls of Congress. A vote is a voice. By voting, the 
American people speak. Every citizen has one voice, one vote. We must 
take care that every citizen's vote is equally counted and not denied. 
Providing funding for the Civil Rights Division's review of changes as 
a result of the census will ensure that each voting district is equally 
populated. No district should be overpopulated nor underpopulated and 
minority groups should have the opportunity to have an impact on who is 
sent to the United States Congress. We saw that impact in the 1990 
census which resulted in an increase in minority representation in the 
United States Congress. We must not see that denied.
  Mr. Chairman, the funding provided by H.R. 4690 is inadequate. I 
support the Serrano-Conyers amendment to include an increased amount of 
dollars to make sure that the civil rights of all Americans are 
protected.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of 
my two previous colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  I also want to talk about another area of civil rights concerns and 
that is the civil rights of our Native American people. As all of my 
colleagues know, while this bill overall has many shortcomings as has 
been just pointed out, there is another glaring example of a 
shortcoming and that is one that I want to talk about. In a tight-
fisted decision that one could only think was a mistake, the Indian Law 
Enforcement Initiative received absolutely no funding whatsoever in 
this bill.
  Let me explain just what that means. That means that tribal courts 
get nothing. That means that tribal COPS grants programs get nothing. 
That means that programs proposed by the administration to make life a 
little bit better for native peoples get nothing. Not one single cent. 
To me, that means once again this Congress is shirking its 
responsibility to our first Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, almost nowhere else in this country, in this Nation, is 
there more need for law enforcement resources than in Indian country. 
On many reservations crime is rampant. For example, of more than 4,000 
FBI cases opened in Indian country, 46 percent involve sexual physical 
abuse of a minor child, 36 percent involve gang activity involving 
Indian youth; and we are giving them nothing. Only 1,700 BIA and tribal 
uniformed officers are available for 1.4 million people. Let me give 
Members an idea of how that relates to those non-Native American 
peoples. That is 1.2 officers for every 1,000 people in native country. 
In contrast, in non-native country, we have 2.8 officers on average; 
1.2 on native lands, over 2.8 on nonnative lands.
  Let us understand what the consequences of this are. Everywhere else 
in America, we see homicides going down. The homicide rates on Native 
American lands, however, are 2.6 times higher than they are for whites. 
They are higher than any other group in this country. Violent crime has 
gone down the last few years with murders down almost 25 percent. But 
let me underscore something. While murders have gone down 25 percent in 
the rest of this

[[Page H4988]]

country, on native territories, on native reservations, violent crimes 
have gone up 90, let me repeat, 90 percent.
  What is this Congress' answer to that? Zero, I repeat, zero funding 
for law enforcement on Native American country. To me, that is 
absolutely unconscionable. If any one of us in our own districts 
anywhere in this country had the kind of crime statistics that 
currently exist on Native American reservations, it would be front page 
news. Every single talk show would be talking about it. Every story 
would be reporting about it. But the outrage in this story is there is 
not any coverage whatsoever. I am sure it has nothing to do with the 
fact that we all but ignore our native peoples here in this country.
  The fact of the matter is we have tried in this bill to get funding 
for Native American law enforcement. We tried to get the President of 
the United States' $173 million for this initiative. It would have been 
an important increase in funding. But what did this bill provide? Zero. 
Zero funding for one of the most crime-plagued communities anywhere in 
this country, a region of this country where there is a 90 percent 
increase in violent crimes while everywhere else sees a decrease of 25 
percent. We are giving them zero, zero funding.
  Now, if it is your child who is getting molested, if it is your child 
that is getting killed and this is in your neighborhood, you would be 
walking down here and protesting right outside this Capitol. The fact 
is that it is native peoples, native peoples in this country. We ought 
to be ashamed of ourselves.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. I want to say to the distinguished Member in the well 
that he is raising an issue about Native American people that we cannot 
ignore anymore. I commend him for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring our attention to a great 
injustice that we are about to commit. It would be a grave oversight if 
the Member's of this House forgot those who have been the most 
neglected. Our obligations to the Native American people of this 
country are ignored in the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Bill. 
The President has requested $173.3 million dollars to provide for the 
Dept. of Justice's portion of the Indian Country Law Enforcement 
Initiative. The House has seen fit to provide H.R. 4690 with no money 
for Tribal Courts, no money for COPS grants for tribes, no money for 
any new or existing programs, no money for tribal law enforcement 
programs.
  Native Americans and Native American programs have suffered at our 
hands for many years. This year nearly $200 million dollars of vital 
funds have been slashed from Indian Health Services. Native Americans, 
the poorest of the poor, suffer disproportionate rates of poverty and 
poverty related illnesses such as diabetes, and we have seen fit to cut 
funding for services to those who so desperately need them, the 
chronically ill. Now we in the House has provided no funding for vital 
law enforcement programs, programs which we ensure are funded fully for 
our own communities. Once again we are turning our back on the 
indigenous people's of the United States. People whom we have given our 
word to, by treaty, to be provided for and protected by our federal 
government. And yet we, in the great federal government and our 
infinite wisdom, have turned our backs on them, yet again.
  Mr. Chairman, crime rates in Indian Country have not dropped as they 
have in the rest of the country. Yet we have not provided any 
assistance to Native Americans to help them, help themselves, to make 
their homes and communities safer places to live. By relying on our 
friends in the Senate to give what we have not seen fit to give, we 
shirk our own responsibility to a great people and to the great nation 
in which they live.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I ask my colleagues to try to reverse 
this horrible trend in funding for Native American law enforcement.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The previous speaker 
obviously has not read the bill, because there is $523 million that the 
committee added in the local law enforcement block grants section that 
is available for Native Americans. They need apply to the 
administration, and the money would be there. I would add, this is 
money that was not in the President's request.
  What did the President request for this program? Zero. This committee 
added $523 million for Native Americans and everyone else. It does not 
discriminate against any group. Anybody can apply for those funds. I 
somewhat resent the fact that the subcommittee has been maligned in 
this respect because the money is there.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. My point was that we recognize there is 
an enormous crime problem on Native American reservations. It is not a 
matter of discriminating for or against our first Americans.
  Mr. ROGERS. I respect that. All of us recognize there is a tremendous 
problem, and that is why we put money in this bill that was not even 
requested by the President. I resent the fact that the gentleman 
maintains that there is nothing in this bill for Native American crime 
fighting. There is. Up to $523 million.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. The point I am making here is the law 
enforcement block grant that the gentleman is talking about, as he 
said, anyone would be able to apply for that. The only trouble is on 
Native American reservations, we have got a crisis; and it is not a 
matter of them having to compete with your or my law enforcement 
community in our respective States. They have nothing. They have a 90 
percent increase in crime. The rest of the country has a 25 percent 
decrease. Yet you are going to throw them in the same barrel as every 
other law enforcement agency. I am not disputing the fact you added to 
everyone's ability, but I am saying given the statistics, would it not 
make more sense to make sure we address specifically the instance that 
we are talking about?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Of course this is the wrong bill for Native American 
assistance. That is the Interior bill. What we deal with in this bill 
is crime. I think we have been very generous in the bill in providing I 
think probably a record amount for the Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
Grants that the Justice Department doles out. I would hope that the 
Justice Department would be fair in listening to the grant applications 
of Native Americans because the money is there. If the gentleman is 
talking about general programs for Native Americans, that is the 
Interior bill, not this one.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman to see that our Justice Department awards our Native American 
law enforcement community the funding that the gentleman has put in the 
bill so that they can receive the kind of support they need on these 
Native American reservations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Just to defend the gentleman from Rhode Island, I would 
point out, if you look at the spread sheet for this bill, if you look 
at the line labeled Indian Grants, $21 million requested by the 
administration. Recommended by the committee, zero. If you look at the 
line Indian Tribal Court Program, $15 million requested by the 
President. Recommended by the committee, zero.
  So I would suggest that while the tribes may be able to receive some 
assistance from some general block grant, there is, as the gentleman 
indicated, no specific assistance in the form of the administration's 
new initiative.

[[Page H4989]]

  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, by the same token, 
there was no request in the administration's budget for funds for Local 
Law Enforcement Block Grants. Not a penny. The moneys that we are 
providing are coming through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
program which Native Americans would be eligible for, obviously, like 
everyone else. It is a matter of specifics versus the general category 
that we put the money in.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say I grant that, but nonetheless it does 
not deny the correctness of the gentleman from Rhode Island who 
indicated that the administration did have a new initiative 
specifically aimed at dealing with the problems in Indian country and 
this bill does not contain the funds that were requested in this bill 
for that purpose.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and 
returning to the amendment at hand which I understand to be an 
amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to increase 
funding for the Civil Rights Commission, not that the discussion that 
just took place was not extremely important, I fully support my 
colleague from Rhode Island and his efforts to try to increase funding 
for crime fighting on Native American reservations.

                              {time}  1745

  The amendment at hand has to do with how we fund and at what level we 
fund the Civil Rights Commission. On that point, I would just point out 
to my colleagues that hate crimes are on the rise. Police brutality is 
on the rise. Racial intolerance is on the rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in the last few days, my 
Republican colleagues have gone out of their way to say that they are 
trying to reach out to the African-American community and racial 
minorities in various ways. They have had a big summit here for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities at which they took credit 
for doing all kinds of things that I was not aware of that they were 
doing for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  Some of them had a big press conference about all of the efforts that 
they had taken on behalf of black farmers; and, of course, we had to 
dispute that at today's press conference. The Speaker and my colleagues 
on the Republican side have gone out of their way to tell us how much 
they support a new markets' initiative that they would like to do on a 
bipartisan basis with the Democrats, and this is the appropriate bill, 
Commerce, Justice, State, this would be the appropriate bill to fund 
that through.
  I note that there is not anything in the bill that would fund that 
initiative, yet, we are trying to do away with and not fully support 
the Civil Rights Commission, whose job it is to go into communities and 
investigate hate crimes, investigate police brutality, investigate and 
expose racial intolerance and the problems that we have in this country 
so that we as a Nation can confront these issues.
  What would we rather do with the money? Sure, we would rather get 
tougher and tougher on crime and increase monies to build prisons. Yet 
will we adequately fund efforts to reduce intolerance? Will we 
adequately fund efforts to reduce hate crimes and expose them when they 
take place, or will we simply be parties to what is going on?
  There is just an insufficient amount of money in the budget, in this 
bill to fund the Civil Rights Commission. There has been a tremendous 
amount of animus on the Subcommittee on the Constitution which has 
oversight jurisdiction over the Civil Rights Commission.
  They spent probably as much time coming to hearings about various 
aspects of their operation as they have the opportunity to spend on 
operating the agency. I think it is time that we fund them and support 
the Conyers amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Representative Serrano's 
amendment to increase funding to enforce and protect the civil rights 
of all Americans. The Majority bill cuts funding from President 
Clinton's request for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division 
and would force the Civil Rights Division to reduce its current 
services. It would also reduce funding for other vital civil rights 
initiatives. We must take every possible step to ensure that the Civil 
Rights of all Americans are protected. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment and provide the needed civil rights funding.
  This bill lacks funding for many significant civil rights activities. 
For example, it lacks funds to investigate law enforcement patterns and 
practices to address policy brutality. It lacks funds to fight abuse 
and neglect in nursing homes, juvenile detention facilities, and mental 
health facilities. It lacks funds to address expected voting rights 
cases resulting from the Census. It also lacks funds to aggressively 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes. These initiatives are all very 
important.
  Why does the Majority bill ignore these needs? What is more important 
than investigating abuse in nursing homes of our vulnerable seniors? 
Given cases like the recent episode in New York City which terrorized 
and sexually assaulted more than 50 women, why can't we fund 
investigations of potential hate crimes against these women? We should 
fund these efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans and 
ensure our existing laws are enforced.
  This bill cuts funds to two important Commissions. It cuts the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights below current services and 19 percent below 
President Clinton's request. It cuts the Equal Opportunity Employment 
Commission [EEOC] 10 percent below President Clinton's request. These 
Commissions deserve our support, play a fundamental role, and highlight 
vital issues in our national debate.
  The bill lacks funds for new and expanded grant programs under the 
successful COPS program for activities to prevent community crime 
related to civil rights. For example, this shortfall underfunds the 
Police Integrity and Hate Crimes training initiative and underfunds 
police recruitment of diversified applicants that reflect the 
communities served. These programs serve America's communities of color 
and we should support them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment and support 
funding to protect and enforce civil rights.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as 
     amended, not to exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from 
     the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.


               salaries and expenses, Antitrust Division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $77,171,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     section 3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, not to 
     exceed $77,171,000 of offsetting collections derived from 
     fees collected in fiscal year 2001 for premerger notification 
     filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements 
     Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a) shall be retained and used for 
     necessary expenses in this appropriation, and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     2001, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $0.


                  Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 7, lines 10 and 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $20,731,000)''.
       Page 90, lines 19 and 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $29,793,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to restore full 
funding of the President's requests for antitrust activities of the 
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
  We have had a series of efforts in the Committee on Appropriations to 
try to deal with the fact that we have an every increasing 
concentration of economic power in all of our areas of our economy. For 
example, four companies currently control 81 percent of the cattle 
purchases and beef processing and wholesale marketing, and in 5 years 
we

[[Page H4990]]

have seen the margin between the price paid to farmers and wholesale 
price for beef jump 24 percent.
  Four companies now control 56 percent of the pork market. The margin 
between the wholesale price of pork and the price paid to the farmer 
has jumped by more than 50 percent.
  We have the same problem with poultry.
  We offered an amendment in the full committee, when the agriculture 
appropriations bill was before it, to try to deal with the problem of 
economic concentration, to give the Agriculture Department more power 
to do that, along with the Justice Department, and the majority party 
voted us down.
  Mr. Chairman, we now are seeking to do the same thing in other areas 
of the economy. I would like to read something that Justice Marshall 
wrote a long time ago. He wrote this,

       Antitrust laws in general and the Sherman Act, in 
     particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are 
     as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our 
     free enterprise system as the bill of rights is as to the 
     protection of our fundamental personal freedoms.

  And an article which quoted that statement, an article by Peter 
Carstensen, (who is a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin 
and with whom I graduated from the University of Wisconsin a number of 
years ago,) the article says this:

       With respect to concentration power and agriculture, past 
     failure to enforce antitrust law has resulted in increased 
     concentration in both the markets applying to agriculture and 
     in those that process and distribute its products. These 800-
     pound gorillas trash the agricultural economy to protect and 
     enrich their present and future position in the market. The 
     farmer and rancher increasingly has no voice in shaping 
     business policy, but simply is bound to obey orders issued by 
     others. Once independent farmers and ranchers are becoming 
     the serfs of the 20th century.

  Mr. Chairman, I agree that that is what is happening.
  If we take a look at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts which 
were adopted by this Congress a long, long time, it would be well to 
take a look at a speech made at the time by Senator Sherman who was a 
Republican from Ohio. He said this,

       If we will not endure a king as a political power, we 
     should not endure a king over the production, transportation 
     and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not 
     submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of 
     trade with power to prevent competition and fix the price of 
     any commodity.

  And that brings me to the subject of oil and gasoline prices. This 
amendment is an effort to restore $29 million to the Federal Trade 
Commission and $21 million to the Justice Department for purposes of 
trying to assure that we have a fully competitive marketplace. We have 
heard a lot of noise about the problem of gasoline prices recently. The 
Federal Trade Commission has recently been asked to investigate 
gasoline price hikes across the country. Since spring, Midwest 
consumers are paying considerably higher prices for gasoline, many pay 
well more than $2.
  Price increases of that kind require scrutiny by antitrust 
enforcement authorities to determine whether they result from collusion 
or any other kind of anticompetitive conduct. In addition, staff is 
needed to address this issue. The need for close antitrust scrutiny is 
particularly clear in the energy industry where even small price 
increases can strain the budgets of many Americans.
  These increases also have a direct and lasting impact on the entire 
economy. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to date, the antitrust arm of 
the Federal Trade Commission spent almost one-third of its total 
enforcement budget on investigations related to the energy industry!
  The FTC's competition mission is to protect consumers from 
anticompetitive conduct and that job requires substantial resources. 
The commission is currently hindered by resources inadequate to fulfill 
its statutory responsibilities.
  The statutory requirements of merger enforcement during one of the 
most significant waves of multibillion dollar mergers in U.S. history 
demand the commitment of significant staff and resources to prevent 
possible future price increases.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, those merger cases draw staff resources away 
from the commission's nonmerger activities, which often deal with 
existing continuing harm to consumers.
  The Federal Trade Commission has a continuing challenge in 
determining how to divide its resources between its merger and 
nonmerger investigations. At the beginning of this decade, the staff 
distribution for merger and nonmerger work was roughly 50/50. At the 
end of the decade, the ratio had changed to more than 2 to 1 in favor 
of mergers.
  When nonmerger emergencies develop that require antitrust 
investigation, such as the present gasoline price hikes, the merger 
wave has left the FTC with fewer resources to address the consumer harm 
as quickly and efficiently as warranted.
  Investigations such as the gasoline pricing investigation are staff 
intensive, time-consuming. They require analysis of all facets of a 
very complex industry. An investigation like this severely strains the 
competing workload being handled by the Agency's 150 antitrust lawyers.
  In this same industry, the FTC recently committed similar numbers of 
staff for its cases involving the mergers of Exxon, Mobil and BP Arco. 
Based on those recent experiences, it is clear that the FTC needs 
additional resources to fill its antitrust mission.
  Let me remind you of one other fact. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) has done us a service by pointing out these facts. If we 
compare the net income of major oil companies first quarter to first 
quarter, you see that Arco is up 136 percent; Amoco, 296 percent; 
Chevron, 291 percent; Conoco, 371 percent; Exxon Mobil a mere 108 
percent; Phillips, 257 percent, Shell, 117 percent and Texaco, ``Trust 
your car to the man who wears the star,'' was the old slogan, Texaco, a 
473 percent increase.
  It seems to me that if you want to do something about this, you 
should heed the words not of me, but of the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, who signed along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) a bipartisan letter asking the committee to, quote, ``provide 
full funding for the Department of Justice's antitrust division and the 
Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition for this fiscal 
year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would just add one sentence in closing. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said this:

       Antitrust laws sustain free markets and dissipate political 
     pressure for government regulation. For that reason, 
     Republicans and, indeed, all citizens should support it 
     wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, some Republicans have 
     criticized enforcement of antitrust laws, claiming that it 
     allows government to regulate the economy and stifle 
     innovation.
       On the contrary, antitrust law is the antithesis of 
     government regulation.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the case is clear, we cannot do a lot 
directly to influence the price being charged to consumers for gasoline 
or any other product, but we can try to see to it that government has 
enough resources to keep the rules of the game honest and to enable us 
to, in fact, find out what the facts are so that we are not all going 
on myth.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of this amendment. It 
demonstrates whose side you are on.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky still reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations for his very persuasive comments, and I 
support his amendment to provide full funding to the Antitrust Division 
and the Federal Trade Commission.
  These agencies have the responsibility to enforce our Nation's 
antitrust laws and keep the economy competitive. Through their vigorous 
efforts to protect competition, these agencies save the American people 
not just hundreds of millions, but probably billions

[[Page H4991]]

of dollars annually. Unlike most other programs we fund, both these 
agencies bring in revenue through the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees, 
that far exceed their annual budget; and the Antitrust Division alone 
has brought in about $1.4 billion in criminal fines in the past 3 
years.
  No one in this House needs to be an antitrust expert to realize that 
our robust economy has placed unprecedented demands on those agencies 
charged with protecting competition in America. Look at the front page 
of the newspapers today. You see stories about the proposed mega-
mergers, such as AOL-Time Warner, Sprint-MCI, Pfizer-Warner-Lambert, 
and Exxon-Mobile, to name a few.
  Look at the hearing schedule on the Hill in recent years. There have 
been hearings in both Chambers on the Microsoft case, the rise in gas 
prices, and the United-U.S. Air merger, to name a few.
  So, now, more than ever, antitrust enforcement is vital to our 
Nation's economic health, and that is why both agencies need additional 
resources to do their jobs.
  The huge swell in mergers in recent years, rapidly changing 
technology, and the existence of international criminal cartels have 
placed a severe strain on the agency's resources. In the last 3 years 
the filings have increased by 51 percent, and so far this year they are 
up over 20 percent from last year.
  With the additional resources that the Obey amendment will provide to 
agencies, they can do a better job in these several ways: first, by 
investigating the increasing number of large and complex mergers; 
secondly, by pursuing major civil cases in industries that include 
telecommunications, airlines and health care, to name a few; and, 
third, intervening to protect consumers from international cartels, 
like the vitamin cartel.
  This amendment should be a no-brainer because the two agencies are 
funded using the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees they take in. Therefore, 
by raising the amount of resources, fully funding these two agencies 
will not place any additional burdens on the American taxpayer. They 
will not take any money away from any other program. But even if we did 
not fund these agencies through filing fees, my support of the Obey 
amendment would be just as strong.
  Mr. Chairman, please let us move this amendment to a successful 
conclusion for the antitrust division and the Federal Trade Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment to 
provide full funding to the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade 
Commission. These agencies have the responsibility to enforce our 
nation's antitrust laws and keep our economy competitive. Through their 
vigorous efforts to protect competition, these agencies save the 
American people hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars 
annually.
  Unlike most other programs that we fund, these two agencies bring in 
revenue through Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees that far exceed their 
annual budget. And the Antitrust Division alone has brought in about 
$1.4 million in criminal fines in the past three years.
  You don't need to be an antitrust expert to realize that our robust 
economy has placed unprecedented demands on those agencies charged with 
protecting competition in America.
  Just look at the front page of the newspaper today, and you see 
stories about proposed mega-mergers such as AOL-Time Warner, Sprint-
MCI, Pfizer-Warner-Lambert, and Exxon-Mobil, to name just a few. Or 
look at the hearing schedule on the Hill in recent weeks. There have 
been hearings in both chambers on the Microsoft case, the rise in gas 
prices, and the United-US Air merger, to name a few.
  Now, more than ever, antitrust enforcement is vital to our nation's 
economic health. That is why both agencies need additional resources to 
do their jobs.
  The huge swell in mergers in recent years, rapidly changing 
technology, and the existence of international criminal cartels have 
placed a severe strain on the agencies resources. In the last three 
years, Hart-Scott-Rodino filings have increased by 51 percent, and so 
far this year, they are up 20 percent over last year.
  With the additional resources that the Obey amendment will provide, 
the two agencies can do a better job: (1) investigating the increasing 
number of large and complex mergers; (2) pursuing major civil cases in 
industries that include telecommunications, airlines, and health care, 
to name a few; and (3) intervening to protect consumers from 
international cartels like the vitamin cartel.
  This amendment should be a no-brainer, because the two agencies are 
funded using the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing fees they take in. Therefore, 
by raising the amount of resources fully funding these two agencies 
won't place any additional burdens on the American taxpayer, and they 
won't take any money away from any other program. But even if we didn't 
fund these agencies through filing fees, my support of the Obey 
amendment would be just as strong.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky still reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to in one way associate myself with a lot of the 
comments made earlier, in that many of us are very, very frustrated 
with the lack of effort in the administration to enforce antitrust 
laws. Money has never been the issue; and in fact, the workload will be 
reduced 40 percent this next year because of the increase in the level 
of mergers, where they become subject to antitrust review. So there is 
40 percent reduction in work, while there is an increase in both areas 
referred to today.
  But the fact of the matter is if you want to look at the problem as 
far as gas prices, which is a huge problem in my home State, in 
Wisconsin and Illinois and the whole Midwest and throughout the 
country, is the fact that the administration has done absolutely 
nothing as far as any review or stopping any of the mergers. The 
gentleman spoke about Exxon-Mobile, a huge increase in profits. This 
Justice Department did nothing to stop it.
  When you look in agriculture in my home State and the consolidation 
and what is happening there, the vertical integration, a great concern 
to my producers out there is, well, will this administration do 
anything about it? No. And when the Attorney General testified in our 
subcommittee and I asked her directly several questions back and forth, 
and she finally threw up her hands and said, ``I don't know what to 
do.''
  This is not a case about money; it is a case about will of 
enforcement of the law. As long as we have people in this 
administration who do only pick and choose for other reasons, political 
reasons, who they go after and who they do not go after, we are never 
going to have any results on these problems.
  So I just respectfully say that there is adequate money. With the 
reduction of the workload that is going to be forthcoming in this next 
fiscal year, a 40 percent reduction in case load, what we need 
actually, Mr. Chairman, is the will of someone in the Justice 
Department to finally stand up and do their job, rather than give a lot 
of lip service. We are paying for it today with vertical integration in 
agriculture, and we are paying for it directly at the gas pump every 
day.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky still reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman from Iowa who 
just spoke, but I respectfully disagree with his interpretation. The 
fact is the administration is in support of the amendment I am offering 
and the administration was in support of the amendment I offered to 
provide additional resources to pursue antitrust and anticompetitive 
activities in the agricultural area as well.
  This is not a new fight. Three years ago the Senate adopted a number 
of amendments adding resources so that we could do this very thing, go 
after anticompetitive practices in the agricultural industry; and in 
conference the Republican majority unanimously, with one exception, 
voted against doing that, and we lost the fight.
  I would point out it is far from the case to suggest that there has 
been a 40 percent reduction in workload on these cases in the Justice 
Department. The fact is it does not matter how many cases you have. 
What matters is how complicated they are. And today, in this new 
economy, in this very complicated economy, these issues are many times 
more complicated than

[[Page H4992]]

they were in 1910. That is why they need more resources, and that is 
why I have tried to offer the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000, 
and that was House Report 106-686. This amendment would provide new 
budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under 
section 302(b), and it is not permitted under section 302(f) of the 
act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules which reported this 
rule to the House also reported a previous rule to the House under 
which we debated the legislative appropriations bill today, and the 
Committee on Rules on that occasion made in order an amendment by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) which required a waiver of the 
House rules.
  The Committee on Rules is controlled by the Speaker. It could just as 
easily have allowed a waiver for this amendment. We asked the Committee 
on Rules to provide that waiver. It did not. So, unfortunately, the 
majority has used the rules of the House to effectively block me from 
being able to offer this amendment. I regret that, but that is in fact 
the reality. So I must very regretfully concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


             salaries and expenses, United States Attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,247,416,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2002, for: (1) 
     training personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors 
     and their property; (3) paying the net costs of selling 
     property; and (4) tracking debts owed to the United States 
     Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for 
     automated litigation support contracts shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That, in addition to 
     reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
     Offices of the United States Attorneys, not to exceed 9,381 
     positions and 9,529 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     United States Attorneys.


                   United States Trustee System Fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), $126,242,000, to 
     remain available until expended and to be derived from the 
     United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, deposits to the 
     Fund shall be available in such amounts as may be necessary 
     to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $126,242,000 of 
     offsetting collections collected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
     589a(b) shall be retained and used for necessary expenses in 
     this appropriation and remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are 
     received during fiscal year 2001, so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2001 appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.


      salaries and expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,000,000.


         salaries and expenses, United States Marshals Service

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and 
     operation of vehicles, and the purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for police-type use, without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, 
     $560,438,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i); of which not 
     to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and of which not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 for development, implementation, maintenance and 
     support, and training for an automated prisoner information 
     system shall remain available until expended: Provided, That, 
     in addition to reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears 
     available to the United States Marshals Service, not to 
     exceed 4,168 positions and 3,892 full-time equivalent 
     workyears shall be supported from the funds appropriated in 
     this Act for the United States Marshals Service.


                              Construction

       For planning, constructing, renovating, equipping, and 
     maintaining United States Marshals Service prisoner-holding 
     space in United States courthouses and Federal buildings, 
     including the renovation and expansion of prisoner movement 
     areas, elevators, and sallyports, $6,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


 Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System Fund, United States 
                            Marshals Service

       Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, payment shall 
     be made from the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation 
     System Fund for necessary expenses related to the scheduling 
     and transportation of United States prisoners and illegal and 
     criminal aliens in the custody of the United States Marshals 
     Service, as authorized in 18 U.S.C. 4013, including, without 
     limitation, salaries and expenses, operations, and the 
     acquisition, lease, and maintenance of aircraft and support 
     facilities: Provided, That the Fund shall be reimbursed or 
     credited with advance payments from amounts available to the 
     Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and other 
     sources at rates that will recover the expenses of Fund 
     operations, including, without limitation, accrual of annual 
     leave and depreciation of plant and equipment of the Fund: 
     Provided further, That proceeds from the disposal of Fund 
     aircraft shall be credited to the Fund: Provided further, 
     That amounts in the Fund shall be available without fiscal 
     year limitation, and may be used for operating equipment 
     lease agreements that do not exceed 10 years.


                       Federal Prisoner Detention

       For expenses, related to United States prisoners in the 
     custody of the United States Marshals Service as authorized 
     in 18 U.S.C. 4013, but not including expenses otherwise 
     provided for in appropriations available to the Attorney 
     General, $597,402,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the United 
     States Marshals Service may enter into multi-year contracts 
     with private entities for the confinement of Federal 
     prisoners: Provided further, That hereafter amounts 
     appropriated for Federal Prisoner Detention shall be 
     available to reimburse the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 
     salaries and expenses of transporting, guarding and providing 
     medical care outside of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions to prisoners awaiting trial or sentencing.


                     Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

       For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of 
     witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and 
     supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel 
     expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by law, including advances, $95,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; of which not to exceed $6,000,000 
     may be made available for planning, construction, 
     renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of 
     buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto, 
     for protected witness safesites; of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of 
     protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000 
     may be made available for the purchase, installation, and 
     maintenance of secure telecommunications equipment and a 
     secure automated information network to store and retrieve 
     the identities and locations of protected witnesses.


           salaries and expenses, Community Relations Service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     $7,479,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of funds made 
     available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be 
     transferred by the Attorney General to this account: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     upon a determination by the Attorney General that emergent 
     circumstances require additional funding for conflict 
     prevention and resolution activities of the Community 
     Relations Service, the Attorney General may transfer such 
     amounts to the Community Relations Service, from available 
     appropriations for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such 
     circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.


                         Assets Forfeiture Fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 
     (F), and (G), as amended, $23,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                    Radiation Exposure Compensation


                        Administrative Expenses

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


         payment to radiation exposure compensation trust fund

       For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust 
     Fund, $3,200,000.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, 
     and prosecution of individuals

[[Page H4993]]

     involved in organized crime drug trafficking not otherwise 
     provided for, to include inter-governmental agreements with 
     State and local law enforcement agencies engaged in the 
     investigation and prosecution of individuals involved in 
     organized crime drug trafficking, $328,898,000, of which 
     $50,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That any amounts obligated from appropriations under this 
     heading may be used under authorities available to the 
     organizations reimbursed from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That any unobligated balances remaining available at 
     the end of the fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney 
     General for reallocation among participating organizations in 
     succeeding fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming 
     procedures described in section 605 of this Act.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 1,236 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 1,142 will be for replacement only, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General, $3,229,505,000; of 
     which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing 
     and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment 
     and not to exceed $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2002; of which not less 
     than $159,223,000 shall be for counterterrorism 
     investigations, foreign counterintelligence, and other 
     activities related to our national security; of which not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for 
     making advances for expenses arising out of contractual or 
     reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement 
     agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug 
     investigations: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, not to exceed 25,384 positions and 25,049 
     full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the 
     funds appropriated in this Act for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation: Provided further, That no funds in this Act 
     may be used to provide ballistics imaging equipment to any 
     State or local authority which has obtained similar equipment 
     through a Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local 
     authority agrees to return that equipment or to repay that 
     grant or subsidy to the Federal Government.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Rush

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Rush:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation--Salaries and Expenses'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $8,500,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--Weed and Seed Program Fund'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $8,500,000)''.

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to 
supplement the Weed and Seed Program with an additional $8.5 million. 
The Weed and Seed Program does exactly what its name indicates: it 
weeds out violent crimes from areas where violent crime is rampant. The 
program also plants the seeds of crime intervention and prevention.
  The Weed and Seed Program is foremost a strategy, rather than a grant 
program, which aims to prevent control and reduce violent crime, drug 
abuse and gang activity in targeted high-crime neighborhoods across the 
country. Weed and Seed sites range in size all the way from several 
neighborhood blocks to 15 square miles.
  The strategy involves a two-pronged approach. Law enforcement 
agencies and prosecutors cooperate in weeding out criminals who 
participate in violent crime and drug abuse, attempting to prevent 
their return to the targeted area. The seeding aspect of this brings 
human services to the area encompassing prevention, intervention, 
treatment and neighborhood revitalization. A community-oriented 
policing component bridges Weed and Seed strategies. Officers obtain 
helpful information from area residents for weeding efforts, while they 
aid residents in obtaining information about community revitalization 
and also seeding resources.
  In today's society, we often hear that people must take 
responsibility for their actions for their communities. The Weed and 
Seed Program is proof positive that communities are seeing to it that 
criminals take responsibility for their action. The program has also 
proved that people are willing to work with law enforcement agencies 
and officials on a local level to reduce violent crime in their 
communities.
  There might be those who argue that this amendment will take money 
away from the FBI's efforts to fight crime in this country. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. This amendment will supplement, 
support, and complement the FBI's effort.
  Therefore, no matter what side of the argument one is on, we are for 
the same thing, and that is safer communities.

                              {time}  1815

  The Weed and Seed program is simply designed to supplement the 
efforts of the FBI by detecting and weeding out crimes on a community 
level.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that the largest recommended 
increase in the DOJ's budget will go to the detention of prisoners. I 
am not against the detention of violent criminals, but instead of an 
almost $800 million increase for detention, why not allocate a measly 
$8.5 million for an increase in a program that is about crime 
prevention. The question is, and I ask, are we really serious about 
reducing crime, or are we simply interested in building more prisons, 
more warehouses? If we are truly interested in reducing crime, we must 
pay as much attention to preventing crime as we do to locking up 
prisoners. The Weed and Seed program is the perfect way to strike that 
balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $8.5 million out of the FBI 
salaries and expenses, that is personnel. Like all of our State and 
local law enforcement grant programs, Weed and Seed is maintained in 
this bill at its current level. There are no cuts. But I would point 
out that in addition to the money that is directly appropriated for 
Weed and Seed, the Attorney General is authorized in our bill to direct 
other Department of Justice funds over to the Weed and Seed program 
and, in fact, for the last several years, they have asked and we have 
consented to reprogramming $6.5 million from the asset forfeiture fund 
each year to the Weed and Seed program. So there is plenty of money, I 
think, available for the program. If the Justice Department feels at 
any time a shortage of monies in this account, they can simply 
reprogram monies from another place toward it.
  Mr. Chairman, what I really have a problem with in the amendment is 
where the monies would come from if this amendment is passed. They 
would come out of the FBI's salaries and expenses account. Now, we have 
scraped every portion of the bill we can with limited assets to try to 
find the money to maintain this war on crime and drugs. The Weed and 
Seed program is a vital part of it, but so is law enforcement, and we 
must not cut the enforcement portion of the fight against crime, and we 
would do so if we cut the FBI by this figure.
  Despite our funding constraints, we have tried, Mr. Chairman, to 
strike a balance to preserve critical Justice programs like Weed and 
Seed, and, of course, the FBI. So I would urge that we reject this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rush

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


[[Page H4994]]


       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Rush:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation--Salaries and Expenses'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $5,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Community Oriented 
     Policing Services'', after the 1st and 6th dollar amounts, 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Community Oriented 
Policing Services program, or COPS. I am offering an amendment to 
increase the funding to the School Violence Initiative portion of that 
program by $5 million.
  The School Violence Initiative provides grants to agencies and 
schools for programs designed to prevent violence in schools. Under 
this initiative, community organizations and school officials work 
alongside police officers to prevent gang violence and drug activity in 
and around elementary schools.
  In the wake of the Columbine incident and in the wake of countless 
acts of school violence in this country, I know that all of my 
colleagues are eager to join in support of this amendment.
  There are millions of children in this country who go to school every 
day eager to learn and to simply be among their peers. How devastating 
that these children should have to fear for their lives while in a 
learning environment. Those children who go to school should not have 
to fear for their lives while they are in school. School should be 
sacrosanct.
  The Community Oriented Policing Services program is only part of a 
program that funds, hires, and rehires for police and at the same time 
pays for equipment. The School Violence Initiative is only a drop in 
the bucket of what we in the Congress should do to stem the rising tide 
of school violence. But, it is an important drop in that same bucket. 
Why do we in Congress cry out in anger and in sadness when there is a 
school shooting? Why do we wait until a story hits the evening news 
before we decide that we must do something about violence in schools? 
Why do we wait until another child dies before we do what we must do 
about violence in America's schools?
  Mr. Chairman, we must put the money behind the rhetoric and fund a 
program that gives our children a better chance at life. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill already provides significant resources to 
combat school violence. In fact, it is a matter that we were very 
concerned about in the subcommittee in our hearings and in the markups. 
In fact, the bill provides $195 million earmarked to address school 
violence, including $180 million in the COPS hiring program devoted 
exclusively to continue the initiative to hire police officers to work 
in schools full time. That is an initiative which the administration's 
budget proposed to eliminate, I might point out.
  An additional $15 million is also included for grants to local law 
enforcement agencies and schools to work together to combat school 
violence. We also provide $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability 
Block Grant Program that communities can use to address juvenile 
violence which the administration also proposed to eliminate, I might 
add.
  I would point out that the gentleman's amendment again proposes to 
cut the FBI's funding that we have provided to them to ensure that they 
can address the growing counterintelligence threats and to do their job 
effectively.
  I would point out that there are millions of dollars in this bill 
already to address the problem with school violence, and to add more at 
the expense of the FBI would not be right.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The amendment was rejected.


  Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. 
                                  Rush

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my request for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 9 be vitiated.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Without objection, the voice vote on which the noes prevailed will be 
the order, and the amendment is not agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with great sorrow and a heavy heart. The eyes of 
the world are upon us and the yoke of justice lays heavy upon our 
shoulders. But today, Mr. Chairman, justice will not be served.
  On this day, June 22, 2000, another man will die in Texas. He will 
not pass by the mercy and the grace of God; he will be executed at the 
hand of the State.
  I am not here to defend the action of those who sit on death row, but 
I rise to condemn the taking of life. To kill a man, any man, is not 
moral, it is not just, and it is not right.
  The death penalty is not becoming of a civilized society. It is not 
worthy of a great Nation. Human life is the gift of the Almighty. Who 
are we to take that gift away?
  This afternoon, a man will die in Texas. A piece of our humanity will 
die with him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              Construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $1,287,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be 
     expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; 
     expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to 
     exceed 1,358 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,079 will be 
     for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft, $1,362,309,000; of which not to exceed $1,800,000 
     for research shall remain available until expended, and of 
     which not to exceed $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and 
     payments for information, not to exceed $10,000,000 for 
     contracting for automated data processing and 
     telecommunications equipment, and not to exceed $2,000,000 
     for laboratory equipment, $4,000,000 for technical equipment, 
     and $2,000,000 for aircraft replacement retrofit and parts, 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2002; of which not 
     to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses: Provided, That, in addition to 
     reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration, not to exceed 7,484 
     positions and 7,394 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects, $5,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration and 
     enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, 
     naturalization, and alien registration, as follows:
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rogers). I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his strong interest and support in increasing Border 
Patrol staffing.
  This issue is of particular interest to me because I represent a 
northern border district. My district, as well as other areas along the 
northern border of Washington State, are facing growing immigration and 
illegal narcotics concerns. I wonder if the chairman would provide me 
guidance on the likelihood of getting additional Border Patrol agents 
for the northern border.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from eastern Washington is

[[Page H4995]]

correct. We need more agents and support staff on the northern border. 
In fact, in the House report, we continue to admonish the INS for their 
failure to address the problems along the northern border, as well as 
their failure to hire the Border Patrol we have already funded for 
them. In fact, INS has still not yet hired over 1,700 agents that we 
provided funding for within the last 2 years.
  However, I will note that the Spokane border sector in Mr. 
Nethercutt's district will receive an additional three agents in the 
near future.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the Clinton administration 
should improve its Border Patrol hiring record. While I am grateful for 
three additional agents, the Spokane sector which stretches through 
three States from the Cascade Mountains to the Continental Divide still 
needs 12 additional agents to get to full staffing.
  I understand this process takes time and will continue to work with 
the chairman and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on this 
matter.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman. He has 
been so persistent on this issue, and he has been heckling this 
committee for a long time on this subject, and I can assure the 
gentleman that we will continue to work with him. We have made a little 
progress at his request, and we will continue to do that, and we will 
continue to work with the gentleman next year, even, on dealing with 
the problem.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his good work 
on this bill, and certainly on this subject.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, next week marks a year since Benjamin Smith took to the 
road in Chicago armed with two handguns. He hijacked a minivan and then 
began a shooting spree where his intended targets were blacks and Jews 
and Asians.
  What most people do not realize is how easily Benjamin Smith could 
have been prevented from doing this. When Benjamin Smith went on his 
killing spree, the two handguns he acquired were acquired illegally by 
an unlicensed dealer, only days after failing a national instant 
background check by a licensed gun dealer. At that time, Benjamin Smith 
was subject to a court order of protection for domestic violence. He 
was, therefore, breaking the law. He attempted to buy a gun from a 
licensed gun dealer. Had the local authorities been notified of this 
instantly, Benjamin Smith would likely have been arrested and would not 
have gone on to purchase guns illegally and begin his killing spree.

                              {time}  1830

  Tragically, the appropriate authorities were not notified of his 
illegal attempt to purchase firearms until after he had killed two 
innocent people and injured 9 others.
  For those voices in Congress, Mr. Chairman, and those voices across 
America who argue time and time again that we must do a better job of 
enforcing existing laws, do I have a bill for them.
  Last year I introduced legislation designed to enforce the national 
instant background check, or NICS system, by requiring the immediate 
notification of local law enforcement authorities when an individual 
like Benjamin Smith fails an instant background check, which is a 
violation of the law.
  Even though criminals and other restricted persons who attempt to 
purchase firearms are in violation of Federal, State, and local law, 
rarely, rarely are such violations reported in a timely manner to 
proper law enforcement authorities. In all too many cases, law 
enforcement is not notified that somebody broke the law.
  Establishing a timely notification system would allow law enforcement 
to determine when they believe there is a threat to public safety in 
their communities. The Illinois State police have established such a 
program, modeled on my legislation, to immediately notify local law 
enforcement of such crimes. I hope my colleagues and I can work 
together with the Justice Department to implement this system on a 
national level.
  The issue of gun safety, Mr. Chairman, is full of contentious issues. 
This, however, is not one of them. This is about the means of enforcing 
laws that are already on the books. It embodies a concept that the NRA 
claims to support, and has the support of groups like Handgun Control.
  This is an amendment that helps to enforce the law and prevent those 
who legally cannot have guns from getting guns. If Members believe 
criminals with guns should be prosecuted, Mr. Chairman, support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in 
this issue. We have not had time to fully study the issue, but I would 
be happy to work with the gentleman on this important issue in the 
hopes that he would be able to withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     enforcement and border affairs

       For salaries and expenses for the Border Patrol program, 
     the detention and deportation program, the intelligence 
     program, the investigations program, and the inspections 
     program, including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
     type use (not to exceed 3,165 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which 2,211 are for replacement only), without regard to the 
     general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; acquisition, 
     lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; research 
     related to immigration enforcement; for protecting and 
     maintaining the integrity of the borders of the United States 
     including, without limitation, equipping, maintaining, and 
     making improvements to the infrastructure; and for the care 
     and housing of Federal detainees held in the joint 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service and United States 
     Marshals Service's Buffalo Detention Facility, 
     $2,547,899,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for costs associated with the training program for 
     basic officer training, and $5,000,000 is for payments or 
     advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     immigration; of which not to exceed $5,000,000 is to fund or 
     reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs associated 
     with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled 
     illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be available 
     to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of 
     $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2001: 
     Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That, in addition to 
     reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, not to exceed 19,766 
     positions and 19,183 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated under this heading in 
     this Act for the Immigration and Naturalization Service: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for the continued operation of 
     the San Clemente and Temecula checkpoints unless the 
     checkpoints are open and traffic is being checked on a 
     continuous 24-hour basis.


  citizenship and benefits, immigration support and program direction

       For all programs of the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service not included under the heading ``Enforcement and 
     Border Affairs'', $573,314,000, of which not to exceed 
     $400,000 for research shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That the Attorney General may transfer any funds 
     appropriated under this heading and the heading ``Enforcement 
     and Border Affairs'' between said appropriations 
     notwithstanding any percentage transfer limitations imposed 
     under this appropriation Act and may direct such fees as are 
     collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
     the activities funded under this heading and the heading 
     ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' for performance of the 
     functions for which the fees legally may be expended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed 40 permanent positions 
     and 40 full-time equivalent workyears and $4,300,000 shall be 
     expended for the Offices of Legislative Affairs and Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices shall not be augmented by personnel details, 
     temporary transfers of personnel on either a reimbursable or 
     non-reimbursable basis, or any other type of formal or 
     informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or funds on 
     either a temporary or long-term basis: Provided further, That 
     the number of positions filled

[[Page H4996]]

     through non-career appointment at the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, for which funding is provided in this 
     Act or is otherwise made available to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, shall not exceed four permanent 
     positions and four full-time equivalent workyears: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds available to the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service shall be used to pay any employee 
     overtime pay in an amount in excess of $30,000 during the 
     calendar year beginning January 1, 2001: Provided further, 
     That funds may be used, without limitation, for equipping, 
     maintaining, and making improvements to the infrastructure 
     and the purchase of vehicles for police-type use within the 
     limits of the Enforcement and Border Affairs appropriation: 
     Provided further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, not to exceed 3,182 positions and 
     3,279 full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from 
     the funds appropriated under this heading in this Act for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, during 
     fiscal year 2001, the Attorney General is authorized and 
     directed to impose disciplinary action, including termination 
     of employment, pursuant to policies and procedures applicable 
     to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for any 
     employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who 
     violates policies and procedures set forth by the Department 
     of Justice relative to the granting of citizenship or who 
     willfully deceives the Congress or department leadership on 
     any matter.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy or statement with the 
chairman. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I spoke about the 
difficulties we have been having in properly servicing legal immigrants 
in my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, a highly underserved area by way of 
services from the INS.
  I am pleased to say that the INS and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) and the committee and I have come to an agreement, 
and I will be submitting that for the Record under general leave.
  I submitted two amendments in order to help remedy this problem, but 
with the agreement of the INS and the chairman those are no longer 
necessary, so my intention is to not offer those amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

         U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and 
           Naturalization Service,
                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2000.
     Hon. Lee Terry,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Terry: This letter is being provided in 
     response to concerns raised by your staff regarding the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Omaha District 
     Office relocation project. The INS Omaha District Office, 
     like many other INS facilities across the Nation, is severely 
     overcrowded due to staffing increases and increased demand 
     for immigration benefits and support. However, over the past 
     5 years, funding for facilities expansion and improvements 
     has not kept pace with the growth in personnel and customers.
       The INS began working with the General Services 
     Administration, the City of Omaha, and local INS Management 
     to plan the acquisition of a new facility in FY 1999 and has 
     already invested over $600,000 in the project. In addition, 
     the INS has taken interim steps to alleviate some of the 
     overcrowded conditions at the current office. This includes 
     relocating selected units to temporary space away form the 
     main District Office and acquiring space in a nearby building 
     to provide expanded waiting room area so that our clients 
     would not have to stand in line outside the building in all 
     weather conditions waiting to be serviced.
       The INS will proceed with the Omaha District Office 
     relocation project in FY 2001. The remaining estimated direct 
     costs that must be borne by the INS to complete the 
     acquisition and buildout of a new facility are $1.32 million. 
     This will include; the above-standard buildout for 
     communications, holdrooms and alien processing, waiting 
     rooms, armory, alien property, security, furniture, telephone 
     and ADP cabling.
       The INS requested $111.1 million for the Construction 
     Appropriation. The House Appropriations Committee has 
     provided $110.7 million. The $71,000 reduction has no affect 
     on the resources budgeted for the Omaha District Office 
     project. The funding for the Omaha District Office 
     acquisition and buildout is included in the level provided by 
     the Appropriations Committee.
       The present plan is to pursue the acquisition and buildout 
     of a new facility on an expedited basis in FY 2001. Once the 
     FY 2001 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation Bill is singed 
     into law and the funding is made available to INS, the new 
     facility can be ready for occupancy within 18-24 months.
       The INS considers the relocation of the Omaha District 
     Office a very high priority. We hope this addresses your 
     concerns. Please contact either Gerri Ratliff on 514-5231 or 
     Barbara Atherton on 514-3206 if more information is needed.
           Sincerely,
     Gerri Ratliff,
       Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations.
     Barbara J. Atherton,
       Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Budget.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we were happy to work with the gentleman. 
He has been very persistent in trying to solve this problem. I think we 
have been successful, and we look forward to working with the gentleman 
further on it as the need may arise.
  Mr. TERRY. I thank the chairman.


 Request for Permission to Offer Amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, page 
19, line 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlewoman send the amendment to the desk?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire which amendment we are 
discussing?
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk has read past the point where the amendment 
of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was in order.
  Does the gentlewoman from Texas ask unanimous consent to return to 
that portion of the bill so she can offer her amendment?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I am not 
sure which amendment it is we are being asked to consider.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 19, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              Construction

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping, and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $110,664,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no funds shall be available 
     for the site acquisition, design, or construction of any 
     Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector.

                         Federal Prison System


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 707, of which 
     600 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments, $3,475,769,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with 
     a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to the 
     custody of FPS: Provided further, That not to exceed $6,000 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That not to exceed $90,000,000 
     shall remain available for necessary operations until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided further, That, of the amounts 
     provided for Contract Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended to make payments in 
     advance for grants, contracts and reimbursable agreements, 
     and other expenses authorized by section 501(c) of the 
     Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, for the 
     care and security in the United States of Cuban and Haitian 
     entrants: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 353(d)), 
     FPS may enter into contracts and other agreements with 
     private entities for

[[Page H4997]]

     periods of not to exceed three years and seven additional 
     option years for the confinement of Federal prisoners.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Campbell

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

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Campbell:
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $173,480)''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), who is the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans do not realize, and when they do, they 
express great surprise and disappointment, to learn that we keep people 
in jail in our country on the basis of evidence that they have not 
seen. This shocks and surprises Americans, because we tend to believe 
that this is a violation of our Constitution, and indeed, it is, as 
every court which has been called upon to rule has so held.
  But the Department of Justice has not followed this across-the-board, 
and it has applied the rulings of a court in a particular case only to 
the facts of that case, so that today, on the best information we have 
available from hearings that were held in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, eight people remain in jail in the United States on the 
basis of evidence that they have not seen.
  How is this possible? The Constitution of the United States says that 
``No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property 
without due process of law.'' No person. These are persons. The 
argument is given by the Department of Justice, well, they are not 
citizens, so we can treat them differently. The Constitution does not 
say ``citizens'' in that clause, it says that no ``person'' shall be 
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
  If someone is in jail, they are deprived of their liberty. There are 
no two ways about that. Yet, when the cases are brought, the Department 
of Justice chooses not to appeal, just limiting the holding to that 
case. And so today eight people remain in jail on the basis of evidence 
they have not seen.
  There is an argument that is raised sometimes that if one is an 
immigrant, they are not entitled to the same kind of rights because 
they do not have a right to come into this country in the first place. 
I understand that. That is an argument the Supreme Court has accepted 
in several contexts. But that has to do with excluding somebody, 
keeping them from coming in, in the first place.
  In the case of one individual, Mazan al Najjar, whom I went to visit 
personally in jail in Florida, he had been in this country for over a 
dozen years. He was a professor at a university in Florida, a man with 
a family, with children, viewed by all as a pillar of the community.
  When I spoke with him, I asked him what had happened. He said that 
the FBI and INS came in and seized him in front of his children and 
took him away in handcuffs, and he has been in jail for over 3 years, 
Mr. Chairman, over 3 years. He said (I do not know this from the INS 
but from him); he said the INS offered him citizenship if he would only 
tell on other relatives. He would not, because he had nothing to tell.
  This attitude of treating people who are not yet citizens differently 
is not consistent with fundamental fairness. If there is evidence that 
an individual who is in this country is dangerous to our country, then 
make that case on the basis of evidence that is presented to the 
individual, so he or she can confront the evidence and present a 
defense.
  That is what we do with those we suspect of terrorism if they happen 
to be citizens. If should not be any different if they just happen not 
to be a citizen, and yet that is what has been done.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue has come before the District of Columbia 
Circuit Court of Appeals, before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 
before the Federal U.S. District Court in New Jersey, before the 
Federal District Court in Florida, and every time it has come before 
these courts it has been held to be an unconstitutional practice.
  It thus became the subject of a bill that my distinguished colleague, 
for whom I have the highest admiration, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior), authored, which was the subject of hearings in the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  I want to take a moment now and thank the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and the full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for graciously offering us an 
opportunity for a hearing for us to present this situation in our 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, during this hearing we learned that the INS is 
continuing this process, and that eight people remain in jail today. So 
what I did in this amendment is to take the average cost of keeping one 
person in jail in the United States prison system and multiplied it by 
eight. That comes up to $173,480. I think we speak about millions and 
billions so often around here, Mr. Chairman, that we can forgive the 
House Action Reports, but for anyone hearing my voice, this amendment 
was reported in that source as costing $173 million. It is not, it is 
$173,000. It is just that we get so used to the big numbers around 
here.
  But this amendment, offered by myself and my colleague from Michigan 
and my other colleagues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), cuts that amount 
of money out of the budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts that money out. This 
amendment cannot legislate. It does not touch the law, because we 
cannot legislate on an appropriation bill.
  What it does, though, is to give each of us a chance to go on record 
in a symbolic way, that is all we can do, but in a very important way, 
and say, this is not the America that we want.
  I urge Members to please vote yes on the Campbell-Bonior-Sanford-
LaHood amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell), for his leadership on this issue, and 
thank the ranking members of the subcommittee for being gracious enough 
to allow us to have a debate on this.
  This is a basic, fundamental issue of justice, no more basic than I 
think any piece of legislation that I have had to deal with in my years 
in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members can imagine a college-educated professional 
living in a sophisticated city, a respected member of the community 
working with children, who has been there 19 years, is a marriage 
counselor at the mosque, a loving father with three children under the 
age of 11, and then one day, unbeknownst to the person, the police and 
the FBI with a newspaper photographer come into the home, arrest the 
person in front of his family, takes him away.
  He has been in jail now for 3 years. They will not tell him why they 
arrested him, they will not tell his attorney why they arrested him, 
and he has no idea how long he will be there. In those 3 years, Dr. Al 
Najjar has not been able to see his children but three times to hug his 
children.
  I have raised this case with the President of the United States, Mr. 
Burger, with as many people as I can across the country. It is an 
outrage that we have a body of law that allows this to happen in the 
United States of America, with no trial.
  What about the secret evidence? The person is told it is secret, so 
they cannot tell him what it is. It may sound like Franz Kafka, but it 
happens here in the United States. Regrettably, we have had a tradition 
in this country of looking at specific groups historically, singling 
them out, and treating them in the same fashion, whether it was the 
Native Americans; African-Americans, termed three-fifths of a human 
being in our Constitution; Japanese-Americans, who were taken from 
their homes and interned during the Second World War, 120,0000 of them; 
members of the Jewish community interned, or not interned but 
discriminated against during the McCarthy era, and now the

[[Page H4998]]

Arab-American and the Muslim community are suffering from the same kind 
of persecution.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to stop this. The amendment that we have before 
us would do just that. It would take the money that is keeping these 
folks incarcerated and eliminate it from the bill.
  Let me just say that in the instances where this evidence has been 
considered in a court of law, it was found to be unsubstantiated 
hearsay, and in one case, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of Virginia, they said, ``The use of secret evidence against a 
party is an obnoxious practice, so unfair that in any ordinary 
litigation context its unconstitutionality is manifest.''

                              {time}  1845

  Four Federal courts now have ruled on this important issue. In fact, 
no fewer than four have ruled on this issue. That is why this amendment 
is so important. By cutting off all funds used to detain people based 
on secret evidence, we will send a message that this Congress still 
believes that the right to confront one's accuser is an important part 
of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. To hear the evidence 
against one is an important part of our Bill of Rights and our 
Constitution. The right to a speedy and a fair trial is as sacred today 
as it was when the Framers drafted our Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to stand up and say we 
oppose the use of secret evidence, not because our commitment to 
combatting terrorism has grown weak, but because our love for the Bill 
of Rights has never been more strong.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. If we 
vote for this amendment, we will send the message that the government 
then either has to charge these individuals and let them know why they 
are being charged or they have to be let go. That is the way of this 
country, that is the way of this Constitution, and that is how we 
should reflect in our vote this evening. I ask my colleagues for their 
support on this amendment. I thank, again, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) and others who have sponsored it.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment from the 
gentleman of California (Mr. Campbell). In the amendment and in his 
underlying legislation, which has strong cosponsorship from both sides 
of the aisle, he asks a fundamental question: Should anyone in this 
country be held without being given the opportunity to face their 
accuser and to review the evidence that has been put forward against 
them? The simple answer is no. This is brought forward by the concern 
that we all share for the fundamental rights enshrined in our 
Constitution and for the fundamental concern that we all share for the 
rights of due process.
  The cosponsors of this legislation, and I would assume the range of 
Members that will vote in favor of this amendment, do not agree on many 
issues. They come from the center, the left, the right, and from all 
different perspectives on the issues of crime and punishment and how we 
view our own role as Federal legislators in dealing with crime and 
punishment.
  But we share one fundamental value, and that is to protect the 
integrity of our judicial system, to protect the integrity of the fifth 
amendment, which should protect everyone in this country from being 
held without due process.
  We do not make judgments on their guilt or innocence of those that 
are being held, but we make judgment on the right or the wrong of 
preventing them from reviewing the evidence that has led to their 
incarceration. I think the gentleman's amendment is modest, but it 
makes a principled point that no one should be held without being able 
to face their accuser. I am pleased to support the amendment and 
pleased to support the underlying legislation as it moves through the 
committee process.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words on the 
Secret Evidence Repeal Act to urge everyone's full support of the 
Campbell-Bonior amendment. This is a cohesive force. The gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) is absolutely correct from all spectrums on 
that political horizon. So this is good. This is healthy for all of us 
that the entire spectrum of political opinion is supportive.
  The United States of America is a Nation based on fairness and 
opportunity. The cornerstone of our judicial system is the right of the 
accused to know what one is accused of and to see the evidence the 
accusation is based upon. This is very fundamental. Our laws do not 
extend this protection to noncitizens who are suspected of terrorism.
  Instead, the INS uses secret evidence to interfere with applications 
for immigration benefits and even to detain and deport the people. The 
INS has gone far beyond the IRS in being public enemy number one. The 
Secret Evidence Repeal Act prohibits the use of secret evidence in INS 
proceedings and guarantees that anyone detained for deportation will 
have legal representation and an opportunity to review all of the 
evidence being used against them.
  Today's amendment, the amendment of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), and I am 
proud to be cosponsor of it, is important because it cuts funding from 
the account used to detain those immigrants on the basis of this secret 
evidence. Supporting this amendment is supporting due process, quite 
frankly, the American way across the political spectrum.
  I support this bill and support the amendment because I believe in 
the right of every American, every American resident to be treated with 
equal justice. We are a country of many backgrounds, many faiths. We 
have an obligation to treat all residents with the same respect and 
fairness.
  I urge all of us to support the amendment because we are not a Nation 
of justice for some, we are a Nation of justice for all. This is a good 
deal for America.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), and the sponsors of this 
legislation, seek to find a solution for one of the delicate balancing 
acts in a democracy; and that is, how we protect individual rights and 
liberties and freedom while protecting the Nation as a whole from 
threats to its national security.
  I would submit that this amendment is both unnecessary and unwise. We 
do not have to look very far to think of a hypothetical that this 
amendment would make a reality. Let us imagine for a moment that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, in cooperation with the other 
Federal agencies, all of which oppose this amendment, seek to detain 
someone for exclusion from the country because they have evidence that 
he is a terrorist. The evidence that he is a terrorist is that he has 
been photographed and spotted making bombs at secret locations 
throughout the Middle East or throughout China or throughout Texas or 
throughout South America.
  The only way that they could hold him or to detain him would be to 
show him this information about this terrorist, the photographs that 
they have, the information that they have of where these cells are 
located.
  It is intuitive, Mr. Chairman, that revealing that type of 
information to a terrorist undermines our ability to stop terrorism. It 
is unfortunate, it is problematic, but it is a fact of life that we 
deal with information very often in this Chamber and in the halls of 
government, that it is a protection that we keep secret. We collect it 
in secret. We use it in secret. It is an awkward co-existence with our 
beliefs that people should have a right to every piece of information 
being used against them.
  But one also does not need to look at hypotheticals. When Sheikh Omar 
Abdel Rahman, who was on trial for conspiracy to blow up the United 
Nations and tunnels and Federal buildings in my hometown of New York 
City, when information was being considered about his application for 
asylum, the judge considered that information in private, in secret. 
This was challenged

[[Page H4999]]

in court in Ali v. Reno, and it was upheld. The court said at the time 
that there are some instances where it is absolutely essential that the 
secret information that is collected by government be used in secret.
  It is also unnecessary, this amendment, because the Justice 
Department has recognized that some of the things that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and some of the things that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) have pointed out are problematic and 
need to be addressed. They are in the process of a very difficult 
analysis of every single one of these cases to make sure that no 
suspect is held without justification.
  Can I say with certitude that, if we pass the amendment or if we do 
not pass the amendment, that someone who is innocent of any crime might 
not be detained and might not be inconvenienced and might not feel a 
violation of his or her rights, I cannot say that. But I can say that 
by passing this amendment and other efforts to categorically, across 
the board, deny the use of secret information would do, I believe, 
irreparable harm to our ability to stop terrorists before they come 
into this country.
  We frequently speak with two voices. We here speak eloquently, and I 
say there are no two men who I respect more in this body than the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) about our need to defend civil rights and 
liberties. I take a back seat to no one in that regard.
  But by the same token, we pass laws around here that send the message 
to our law enforcement authorities we want them to stop terrorism 
before it gets a chance to get off the ground and stop it before it 
comes through this country.
  When we had an experience in this country where someone successfully 
brought a bomb into the World Trade Centers and ignited it, there was 
naturally concerns about whether or not we were doing enough to stop 
terrorism. This bill would gut the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996 and a whole series of other bills.
  I do not question for a moment the goodwill of the sponsors of this 
bill, but I do urge them all to think carefully about what information 
we would be required to be made public.
  Let me just conclude. I started with a hypothetical; let me end with 
a hypothetical. Let us assume in that hypothetical they had turned over 
the information. That was one option. The other option under this 
legislation, the amendment we are considering today, is they let the 
person go free, they let the person into the United States, they let 
the person come in here and, God forbid, do the damage that they sought 
to do when they came to this country. Neither scenario is a good one.
  The sponsors are right that the present law and the present method of 
doing anything needs to be improved, but I do not believe the 
alternative is better.
  Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me. I wanted to raise a point with him.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Bonior, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Weiner was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, the reason I want to raise that is because 
there was a trial, and people were provided with an opportunity to 
defend themselves and charged except for one individual. His name was 
Hany Kiaraldeen and Hany Kiaraldeen spent 19 months in jail on secret 
evidence. When he finally got to the court, and he was part of the 
charge here in the World Trade bombing, and when he finally got to the 
court, I would tell the gentleman from New York, the court and the 
judge looked at the evidence, and they decided that it was not 
corroborated, that it was an estranged spouse who had a beef against 
him that kept him in jail for almost a year, more than a year and a 
half of his life. He could not see that evidence for a year and a half.
  So that is the kind of individual we are trying to protect. Had he 
been able to see the evidence earlier, he could have made his case, he 
could have gone to court, and he would have been free today. But that 
took 2 years almost out of that man's life.
  Those are the kind of people we are trying to protect, not the people 
who engage in terrorism. We do not condone that for one second, but we 
do not want people like Hany Kiaraldeen, and Nasser Ahmed and Mazen Al-
Najjar who have spent 2 and 3 years in jail who have suffered as a 
result of not being able to confront their accuser.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate it, and 
that was an example of what this amendment seeks to address.
  What this amendment does not seek to do but may do is allow the 
freedom for cases like Mohammed Abu Marzook, the leader of the 
political wing of Hamas, where that secret evidence was used in the INS 
detention proceedings and exclusion proceedings against him, and it 
turned out, I think many of us would argue, he did indeed pose a 
threat.
  I do not argue the contention for a moment that the process that we 
use must be perfected. I, however, believe that by doing it in such a 
Draconian way is not wise.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-Bonior 
amendment to cut funds from the account used to detain immigrants on 
the basis of so-called secret evidence. My reasons are very simple. 
Basic human rights and due process under law are cornerstones of our 
democracy. They are too easily undermined for immigrants. I believe, 
however, that in the United States our Constitution provides 
protections to all individuals, citizen and alien alike.

                              {time}  1900

  And the use of secret evidence as a means to detain somebody for 
months or even years without legal recourse is a violation of basic due 
process. It is that simple.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of immigrants. With the exception of 
Native Americans, our ancestors came here from all parts of the world. 
Our families and our communities are the living legacy of immigrants 
seeking new opportunities in America. Often they were fleeing nations 
where they had no rights, where they were denied due process and equal 
justice. It is because of this history that we as a Nation of 
immigrants cherish our rights to due process in the courts. These 
include the right of the accused to face their accuser, and to see, 
hear and respond to the evidence presented against them.
  Judges who have ruled on secret evidence in several immigration cases 
have determined that the defendants should be released from jail 
because not only did the secret evidence not appear related to 
protecting national security interests, it was determined by the judges 
to be unreliable.
  It seems to me that the use of secret evidence is a feature of 
totalitarian governments, not of a democracy, and certainly not of the 
United States of America. Clearly, we must protect all Americans from 
acts of terrorism and from those who plan or carry out such acts. No 
one, Mr. Chairman, absolutely no one in this body, would put our Nation 
at risk from a terrorist attack. But this is America, and even in those 
instances, evidence must be solid and able to withstand just additional 
scrutiny.
  Time after time it has been demonstrated that we have the ability to 
apprehend and successfully prosecute truly dangerous terrorists, such 
as those who bombed the World Trade Center. But our national security 
also depends on the strength of our democratic institutions and on the 
fairness of our courts. I urge my colleagues to support the Bonior-
Campbell amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, I am sure unintentionally, 
jeopardize our national security and endanger public safety. Often the 
Government obtains classified evidence which, if provided to terrorists 
and made public, would gravely endanger U.S. agents and weaken U.S. 
intelligence sources.

[[Page H5000]]

  When the Government uses classified evidence to remove a terrorist, 
the terrorist often delays the deportation with lengthy court appeals. 
Usually the terrorist must be detained during his appeal, since Justice 
Department studies show that more than 90 percent of criminal or 
terrorist aliens are likely to abscond. This amendment would eliminate 
the funding used to detain terrorists if classified evidence is used 
against them. This would force the Justice Department to choose between 
either letting terrorists go free within the United States or revealing 
classified evidence that could expose U.S. agents abroad and compromise 
U.S. intelligence operations.
  In sum, this amendment would make the Government release terrorists 
regardless of the consequences. It would effectively require the 
Government to release terrorists and suspected terrorists who are now 
in custody and who would then be free to commit other terrorist 
actions. The use of classified evidence against terrorists is a rare 
but vital law enforcement tool that must be managed carefully by U.S. 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
  The Justice Department is now conducting a review of all pending 
cases to ensure that individuals are not held without justification. 
Meanwhile, it would be dangerous to abolish all use of classified 
evidence against terrorists.
  This amendment is opposed by the Justice Department, the Anti-
Defamation League, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies 
and anti-terrorist organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, too.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we struggled with this question in the Committee on the 
Judiciary 4 years ago when this was adopted. I yield to no person in my 
abhorrence and opposition to terrorism. The World Trade Center 
explosion occurred in my district about 6 weeks into my first term of 
office. But I also yield to no one in my regard for due process of law 
and for the basic protections that we have held to protect the 
liberties of people ever since Magna Carta. And the use of secret 
evidence is fundamentally abhorrent to every concept of due process and 
the rule of law of every Anglo-Saxon legislative chamber and concept of 
law we have had for the last 900 years or so.
  We have to balance some considerations. There are terrorists in this 
world, and they pose a threat. There are also spies who steal atomic 
secrets, and they pose a threat. This Congress passed a number of years 
ago the Classified Information Protection Act, CIPA, which deals with 
crimes, not with immigration; which deals with espionage, and gives 
people accused of serious crimes of espionage far more rights when 
secret evidence is sought to be used than does this law with respect to 
immigrants of whom we suspect they may be involved with terrorism. 
There is no reason why we should not give those immigrants the same due 
process rights, if they are accused of terrorism, as we give to people 
accused of stealing atomic or other secrets or of espionage or of other 
serious crimes.
  I am not comforted to hear a colleague talk about how the State 
Department assures us, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
assures us that they use this terrible power of prosecuting people with 
secret evidence sparingly and with discretion and with sensitivity. If 
history teaches us anything, it is that we trust no man with such power 
because that way lies tyranny. We can strike a much better balance.
  This law, which this amendment seeks to render inoperative, says that 
if in the judgment of somebody, if they can go to the judge and 
persuade him that evidence is too sensitive to be made public, then 
that evidence can be used against the accused if they give him a 
summary of the evidence sufficient to provide a defense. Not as good a 
defense as if he knew the evidence, but a defense. Any old defense. And 
if they judge even that too dangerous, they can still use the evidence. 
So a man can be placed on trial, or a woman, and ask: What am I accused 
of? We can't tell you. Who are the witnesses? We can't tell you. What 
are the allegations? We can't tell you. What is the evidence? We can't 
tell you. Go defend yourself. Ridiculous. Impossible.
  The Classified Information Protection Act says, and this is what we 
rely on in espionage and other serious criminal cases, if evidence is 
too sensitive to reveal, the evidence can be used if a summary is 
provided to the accused sufficient, in the opinion of the judge, to 
enable the accused to mount a defense as effective and as good as if he 
had seen the evidence itself. Not any old defense. And if he cannot be 
given such a summary sufficient to enable him to mount as good a 
defense, because it is thought to be too sensitive, then the 
information cannot be used.
  We think the safety of this country has been adequately served 
against atomic spies and against people who seek to do all sorts of 
other crimes against this country with this use of secret information, 
this limited use of secret information and this balancing of the rights 
of the accused. Why should people accused of terrorism who are 
immigrants be any different? This CIPA law strikes a much better 
balance. It gives adequate protection to the need for the public for 
safety, but it does not rip asunder every tradition we have had that 
makes us different from totalitarian countries.
  So I applaud the gentlemen for offering this amendment. I hope it is 
adopted. And I hope whether it is adopted or not, it will spur us to do 
the one simple act that will properly safeguard our liberties and our 
safety, and that is to extend the CIPA law from criminal law, which it 
covers, to the question of immigration, which it should equally cover; 
and we will then not need that Draconian and this insensitive and this 
illiberal and this anti-libertarian law.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing 
this amendment to the floor, along with his colleague, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). This is a crucial amendment. It is vital 
that we pass it.
  This is truly a civil libertarian issue. It does go back to 1215 with 
the Magna Carta. It is not an American invention, that people should be 
protected and not convicted on secret information. This is not 
something new. However, it has been abused for hundreds of years at 
least. It has been abused by totalitarian governments.
  Now, many may say today that this is not a big deal; this is not 
going to affect the American citizens; it is just a couple of poor old 
immigrants that may be affected. But what is the motivation for the 
national ID card? It's good motivation to make sure there are no 
illegal immigrants coming in. So it's said we need a national ID card. 
But who suffers from a national ID card? Maybe some immigrants, and 
maybe there will be an illegal one caught? But who really suffers? The 
American people. Because they will become suspect, especially maybe if 
they look Hispanic or whatever.
  Well, who suffers here? Well, first the immigrant who is being abused 
of his liberties. But then what? Could this abuse ever be transferred 
to American citizens? That is the real threat. Now, my colleagues may 
say, oh, no, that would never happen. Never happen. But that  is  not  
the  way  government  works. Government works with incrementalism. It 
gets us conditioned, gets us to be soft on the protection of liberty.
  Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. 
Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of 
government and the efficiency of government comes second to the 
protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I 
wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here 
and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can 
start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to 
defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, 
the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with 
good intentions.
  The national ID card is done with good intention. Those who oppose us 
on this amendment, I think they are very, very sincere, and they have 
justifiable concerns and we should address these. But quite frankly, 
killing and murder for a long time, up until just recently, was always 
a State matter. This is rather a new phenomenon that we as a

[[Page H5001]]

Federal Government have taken over so much law enforcement. That is why 
the Federal Government, when it sets this precedent, is very bad.
  So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I 
think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really 
confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should 
strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to 
convict anyone in an American court.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked a very good question, 
whether this could ever extend to citizens. Let me suggest to the 
gentleman that I visited Mazan Al Najjar in jail in Florida. His little 
daughter is an American citizen. He cannot hug her. His wife is an 
American citizen. He cannot visit with her. His sister is an American 
citizen. He has to see her through Plexiglas.
  Has it already affected American citizens? It has. And if it was not 
true, any of those things I just said, this practice still affects 
American citizens, because each of us is less free when our country is 
less free.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
for bringing this issue before the House in this way. It is about time 
that this body faced this issue squarely. We have been ignoring it now 
for too many years.
  It was only several years ago that a bill came before us which 
changed the way we deal with immigrants in very stark and dramatic 
ways. I am one of those who voted against that bill at that time 
because I was fearful that the kind of circumstance that this amendment 
addresses would arise, and it would arise all too soon. And most 
certainly it has.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), I think in his opening 
remarks, put it very, very well. The fundamental right of any person to 
face their accuser and to know the basis upon which that accusation is 
made is, and ought to be, ingrained in our law, in our being, in our 
essence, in our society, in every way; and we ought to fight and 
struggle to the utmost of our ability when anyone tries to take it away 
from us.

                              {time}  1915

  This is the way liberty is lost, by degrees, by inches, 
incrementally, not by huge gaps but by tiny measures, by tiny measures 
that grow into larger ones and larger ones and larger ones. First, it 
is this small group of people who are affected; and we ignore them 
because they are not us, they are not of us. And then it is another 
group, and then another, and another. And before we know it, it is 
those who are around us, those who are of our blood, those who are us 
ourselves.
  That is the problem that we are facing here. And today we are offered 
a remedy. It is a good and proper remedy. I hope that we will have the 
wisdom to take it.
  I thank these gentlemen for giving us this opportunity. It is, in 
fact, about time that this House face this issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I agree with 
every word that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has said. I 
also agree with the words of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). 
I want to congratulate both sponsors of this amendment.
  This may seem like a very small thing. But liberty is the biggest 
thing of all; and if it is not fully provided for every individual, 
then it is really safe for no one.
  I really believe that if this is adopted today, this will be the most 
important thing in what is otherwise a very questionable bill.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for those 
remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is probably not two times in a year that I agree 
with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) but I do on this bill, 
and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  I was in Hanoi and we had Americans incarcerated in their jails, and 
not even Pete Peterson or one of his representatives were allowed to be 
present during the trial. We think that is terrible.
  In China, they can go before a tribunal, an American, and not even 
have an English interpreter to let them know what they are charged for.
  My colleagues can imagine what it was like with Saddam Hussein or 
those kinds of things. And most of the American people repel those 
kinds of ideas.
  This is the United States of America.
  Now, I would tell people, if they are illegals coming into this 
country, if they are Irish coming into this country, I just want to 
give them a ticket back home. But I want to tell my colleagues we have 
those illegals dying in our deserts, in our mountains, and in our 
rivers. That is wrong, and we ought to stop that. But I would give them 
a ticket out of here.
  Whether they are legal or illegal, they have a right if they are 
brought and tried in this country or held in jail, it ought to be an 
inalienable right to at least know what they are charged for.
  I mean, I cannot even comprehend the United States of America putting 
somebody in jail and not letting them know what the evidence against 
them is. It is inconceivable.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in the 104th Congress, when we passed the 
effective death penalty and anti- terrorism law, which covered some of 
this material, I remember that several Members raised concerns about 
this particular provision. I also remember that, right over here, a 
more senior Member tried to quell any fears people had by saying, do 
not worry, this will never apply to American citizens. This will never 
apply to American citizens. That is probably true.
  It is also true, Mr. Chairman, that the American people would never 
tolerate the treatment that non-citizens have endured under this 
doctrine. We expect in this country that our rights and protections 
come not from the citizenship of the defendant but from the changeless 
values of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  I think many Members are unaware of how this doctrine actually 
operates. I would ask that my colleague the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) engage in a colloquy with me so that we may explain 
exactly what happens to people who are arrested under this doctrine.
  Can the gentleman tell me specifically, when someone is arrested 
under this particular provision, what is he told when he is brought 
into the police department?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the person is told that the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service is detaining the person pending possible 
deportation.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is he told what he is 
charged with or what he has done wrong?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield. The individual is not told what he has done wrong or what he is 
charged with. He is simply told that he is subject to a deportation 
proceeding.
  Ms. RIVERS. Once he is incarcerated, is held awaiting further 
proceedings, if his family comes to the place that he is being held, 
can they find out what charges are being put against him, what evidence 
might exist, what is happening to him, when they might see him?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Neither the family nor the individual is told the 
specific reasons for the person being held pending deportation. They do 
not have access to the evidence which is alleged to

[[Page H5002]]

be the basis for the deportation. And they do not know how long their 
loved one is going to be kept in jail pending deportation.
  And from personal experience, I know one family who tried to find 
some country to take their father and husband and they are still 
trying, and he has been in jail for 3 years.
  Ms. RIVERS. Once charges are actually filed, does the accused get to 
find out what evidence the Government has against them relative to the 
crime that they are charged with?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. In crime, yes. The sixth amendment to the United States 
Constitution explicitly guarantees, and I read, ``In all criminal 
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with 
the witnesses against him.''
  Ms. RIVERS. But under this particular doctrine, does the individual 
have a right to find out what evidence is being used against him?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Under the view of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service Department of Justice, the individual does not.
  Ms. RIVERS. Does this individual have a right to know which witnesses 
have given evidence against him?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Under the view of the Department of Justice and the 
INS, no.
  Ms. RIVERS. Once this individual has an attorney and has engaged an 
attorney, can the attorney see the evidence that is being used against 
his client?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
  Ms. RIVERS. Can the attorney know what witnesses' testimony are going 
to be used, and can they depose those witnesses?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No. The witness gives the evidence solely to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service judge. The attorney on the other 
side does not know their identity nor have the ability to cross-
examine.
  Ms. RIVERS. How, then, can the attorney prepare a defense for this 
particular individual?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The attorney attempts in those cases where they have 
some opportunity to prove a negative, to say that, my client has been 
an upstanding member of the community for so many years. And in those 
cases where we have been able to find out the truth, we frequently find 
that the secret evidence was erroneous testimony, a wrong 
identification, or in some cases even a spiteful identification.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman think of any 
circumstances where an American citizen here in the United States would 
be subject to the same sort of treatment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. It is quite clearly unconstitutional to apply this 
practice to any citizen in the United States.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in speaking to the Daughters 
of the American Revolution, said, ``Remember always, we are all the 
children of immigrants and revolutionists.''
  And we are of, most of us are just a few generations away from 
immigrants. And, unfortunately, many of us are only a few decisions of 
this body away from the kind of treatment we are discussing tonight.
  Our history, our view of justice, and our allegiance to our 
Constitution demands that we eliminate this offensive practice.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply rise and join and applaud the efforts of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) to repeal the secret evidence provision, which I 
think, or at least hope, came as an unintended consequence of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of a few years ago.
  I say that for a couple of different reasons. But one of the reasons 
I say it came in part from an article that I read in, of all places, 
the Wall Street Journal back in March; and it chronicled the story of a 
Harold Dean, whom I have never met. But it is a fascinating story. If 
my colleagues will indulge me, I will tell briefly his story.
  Harold Dean survived the kind of judicial nightmare the State 
Department likes to criticize in its annual report on human rights 
problems around the globe.
  For 19 months, he was held in jail on vague assertions that he was 
involved in terrorism. He was not told the specific evidence against 
him, and the courts refused to disclose who had accused him. That 
information, he was told, would be kept secret from him and his lawyers 
on national security grounds. For a year and a half, he was in limbo, 
he says, never charged with any terrorism acts or even questioned.
  The most noteworthy aspect of Harold Dean's case is the country 
wherein it transpired. He was held here in the United States of America 
under a little-known secret evidence law that was part of antiterrorism 
act passed in 1996.
  Now, ultimately he was freed at the end of 19 months. It turns out 
the allegations originated from his former wife, with whom he was 
locked in a fairly bitter child custody proceeding. But many others 
have not been nearly so fortunate. And so, it is for this reason that 
the authors of this amendment propose to take $170,000, which is 
roughly the number that the eight people here in the United States are 
incarcerated based on this current law.
  Now, some folks would say, well, this will hurt our antiterrorism 
efforts. I would just remind them that I suppose it might. And I 
suppose that that would be a good thing. Because our Founding Fathers 
were very explicit about not wanting perfectly efficient Government. If 
so, I suppose they would have designed a dictatorship.
  Instead, they wrote out the Constitution, and the guiding principle 
of that Constitution was the idea that the needs of the majority should 
never supersede the rights of the minority. I think that this story is 
a perfect example, wherein 19 months of this man's life were taken from 
him and they will never be given back.
  And so, from the standpoint of personal liberty, from the standpoint 
of adhering to what Jefferson talked about 200 years ago when he said 
that the normal course of things was for liberty to yield and for 
government to gain ground, and from the standpoint of particularly the 
constant adherence of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to 
the Constitution, joined, in this case, by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior), I would just urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will make a very brief comment. Then if the gentleman would yield 
to our colleague, I think it would be good to have a colloquy.
  I would simply thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
for his adherence to the Constitution and to the principle that, yes, 
we CAN achieve maximum security in our country if we sell our freedom, 
but we never should.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman, as well, 
although I disagree with him, for making a point in his remarks that 
were missed here; and that is the number of cases that we are talking 
about. There has been some language used today that would give the 
impression that there is wanton use of this section of the law.
  In fact, according to the General Council of the FBI, of all of the 
immigration litigations going on now, about some 300,000-odd cases, 
only 11 even seek to use any element of secret evidence. And I think 
that that is a sign that this is not something that is being used 
frivolously by the agency. This is something that is being used in a 
somewhat targeted way.
  I would just remind us all to address the fundamental problem, and my 
colleague started to and I commend him, that, if we have a terrorist 
and we have information about them, there is a very good chance that 
revealing that information would pose harm to people.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the 
problem of this in this case, in the story that I just read, we have an 
embittered former wife accusing a person of being a terrorist and, as a 
result, through no action of his own, he is incarcerated for 19 months 
of his life.

[[Page H5003]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the argument of the gentleman could just 
as well be made about a citizen. The gentleman could be here saying, 
those terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Courthouse, to 
protect ourselves from them, we needed to get secret evidence and 
spirit them away as quickly as possible.
  We solve this in our Constitution. We have said, no, even to make 
ourselves more secure against a bombing of that nature, we do not 
violate the fundamental right of freedom.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Weiner) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanford was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) is exactly right. I believe that there are and may be 
cases where this causes an uncomfortable sense for us.
  But this is not a unique thing we do in our Government. We take 
people's rights away all the time to know exactly where the Government 
dollars are spent.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the opposite 
is true. The gentleman made the very point that it is an extremely 
unique event in the fact that only 11 folks have been charged with this 
particular provision of law. And then to suggest that it is not at all 
unusual I think is arguing both sides of the equation.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. WEINER. The point I was making is that this is not a unique 
section of law, but where there are times, very rare times that we say, 
the overall defense of the Nation and national security dictate that 
sometimes we have this tug of war between our rights.
  Mr. SANFORD. Reclaiming my time, I would say that that is ultimately 
what we disagree on, because I do not think that again the rights of 
the majority in this case supersede the rights of the individual.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Let us consider, as the gentleman points out, if in 
every other case the Justice Department seems able to handle the 
concerns of the United States without recourse to secret evidence, then 
the argument surely is difficult to say that it was absolutely 
necessary in the case of the 11.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition because it sounds like 
there is an inequity here that needs to be addressed by the authorizing 
committee, the Committee on the Judiciary. There is a reason why there 
is a rule of this House that you shall not legislate on an 
appropriations bill, and I think we are seeing a good example of that 
tonight. This is a matter that needs to be heard and aired in the right 
forum, with the right machinery in place so that we can make the right 
decision. And so I would hope that we would reject the amendment on 
this appropriations bill in favor of hearing the matter in the 
Committee on the Judiciary where it belongs, in the gentleman from 
Texas's (Mr. Smith) subcommittee or whatever subcommittee of the 
Committee on the Judiciary it belongs in.
  In fact, I understand that H.R. 2121 has been referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary and addresses the issue of this so-called 
secret evidence matter. I would dearly hope that we would do that and 
address it quickly and adroitly and expertly and with knowledge, 
weighing all of the factors involved in the right forum.
  Number two, I realize this is a symbolic amendment. It is not going 
to change anything if you pass it. It merely would cut $173,480 out of 
the Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses. And that you are using 
this as a vehicle to get this issue elevated and aired and I salute you 
for that. But I would hope you would not be serious about cutting BOP's 
salaries and expenses.
  In the first place, you are cutting the wrong people. INS, if 
anybody, is at fault here; and you are not cutting INS. You are cutting 
the poor old BOP. They do not house these prisoners. INS houses the 
people that you are talking about, not poor old BOP who are hurting for 
money to house the legitimate detainees that we have sentenced to our 
Nation's prisons. And so do not punish the innocent party here in an 
effort to right a wrong that you see that perhaps needs to be righted 
but in the right place, in the authorizing committee.
  So while I salute you and I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
very horrible-sounding issue before us, I would hope that you would 
choose the right forum and not punish innocent people in the process.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman has been gracious throughout. I would 
make two points, though. We have had hearings in the Committee on the 
Judiciary and in the subcommittee as well; and I am grateful to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for allowing that. So we have done all we can except for 
scheduling a markup in that committee. Secondly, the cost that we are 
proposing here is less than one-half of one-thousandth of a percent of 
the Department of Justice budget, and so I doubt that it really will 
have anything more than the symbolic value which is the entire purpose 
of my amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. But the gentleman understands that the Bureau of Prisons 
has nothing to do with this; it is the INS, if anybody's fault, and BOP 
has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand 
that is actually not the case, that the cost of the incarceration is a 
charge to the Bureau of Prisons. The INS incurs the cost of arresting, 
the cost of prosecuting; but the cost of incarceration is all I am 
after in this particular bill, in this particular effort, because it is 
the incarceration of people on the basis of evidence that they cannot 
see that strikes me as the least fair of all.
  Mr. ROGERS. INS pays for the detention of all these people. It is not 
BOP. It is the INS. You are punishing the wrong people. If you were 
punishing INS, I might join you because I have got my complaints there, 
too.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will yield further, would the 
gentleman accept a unanimous consent request to go after INS instead? I 
do not think he would. The truth is the Bureau of Prisons houses 
prisoners, and we have to go after them.
  Mr. ROGERS. This belongs in the right forum, over there in the 
Committee on the Judiciary where you can debate this for all that it is 
worth, and it is worth a lot it sounds like; but please do not burden 
this bill with another rider.
  I urge the rejection of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. 
I commend the two authors. We owe them a great debt. We have been 
waiting a long time to have this kind of legislation on the floor so 
that we could address a very basic wrong which is being done in 
violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
  Let me quote from one of the Founding Fathers. His picture is on the 
wall outside this Chamber. His name was Ben Franklin. He had this to 
say: ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor justice.''
  I ask my colleagues to hear that and to listen. His picture is out 
there. It is a great picture, done by Howard Chandler Christy in 1936 
to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the United States Constitution. 
He is surrounded by men who knew and understood for what this Nation 
stood and for what they fought. I ask you to note that those were men 
who had undergone the rule of King George where you had ex post facto 
laws, bills of attainder. Men were detained by the King's men without 
any excuse or reason, and they were simply locked up and perhaps at 
some later time they were released. Perhaps not.

[[Page H5004]]

  You can say this is just a matter which relates to immigrants and 
that the constitutional protections of due process under the fifth 
amendment and the 14th amendment do not apply to them. And you can say, 
well, it is just a little bit. Or that this is to protect ourselves. I 
want my colleagues who feel differently than I do to continue to hold 
that. It is their right. But I will tell you one thing, that a 
government which has the power to detain, without showing a reason 
therefor, any of its citizens or noncitizens, whether they are good or 
bad, is a greater danger to me, to us, and to our liberties than is the 
presence of a few who might be terrorists or who might constitute some 
risk to those of us who are proud to be Americans.
  This is a deplorable practice. It certainly evades and defiles the 
purposes and meaning of the due process clause. Secret evidence is an 
embarrassment to us all. At least 20 individuals are now being held 
hostages in prisons and deprived of liberty, some for as long as 2\1/2\ 
years. Interestingly enough, I am not describing here the justice 
system in China, the justice system in Cuba, or the justice system in 
the old Russian Communist system. This is the American justice system 
which I am describing at this time, and it is one which flouts the 
basic principle for which Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson and George 
Washington and all the other great Americans stood. It is something 
which serves as a threat not just to immigrants but indeed as threats 
to each and every one of us. Due process is being denied here, and it 
has been used in a discriminatory manner.
  One interesting thought. In every case stemming from the 1996 secret 
evidence rule which I opposed, only immigrants of Arab descent have 
been detained. Does that tell you that this rule of law, if such it can 
be called, is being fairly applied? I think, Mr. Chairman, it is time 
for us to stand up for our fundamental American values. We should stand 
up for liberty, for freedom, because the threat to the freedom of one 
is indeed the threat to all, to each and every one of us.
  We have not been able to get this matter to the floor as a part of a 
regular freestanding piece of legislation, and certainly we should have 
been able to do so. We have finally been forced to consider this 
important matter under this kind of situation. And while I would prefer 
much more to have a debate which addressed these questions under the 
regular order, I have to say that this is an important enough matter 
affecting the freedom and the liberty of too many people to be denied 
that kind of opportunity to bring it up as we do tonight.
  I hope that if we are successful, since this is in good part 
symbolic, that we will see something happen in the Committee on the 
Judiciary so that we can address this. Perhaps there is something that 
we should do to protect the United States and our security. But I do 
not believe that what we are doing or what we are attacking here 
tonight is something that protects the liberties of the American people 
or by dealing with the question of terrorists in any intelligent 
fashion. I am much more afraid of having a situation where Americans 
can be charged without any knowledge of why they are charged or with 
what they are charged than I am of having something of this kind going 
on.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment sponsored by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and my distinguished 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). I applaud their efforts to end a 
deplorable practice that violates the spirit and clear meaning of the 
5th Amendment's due process clause. The use of ``secret evidence'' is 
an embarrassment to the U.S. justice system. It has unfairly targeted 
individuals solely on the basis of their nationality, and flies in the 
face of the values Americans hold most sacred.
  Today, at least 20 individuals are being held hostage in prisons and 
deprived of liberty, some for as long as 2\1/2\ years. They have not 
been charged with committing any crime, nor have they had a trial. They 
have not even been informed as to why they are being held and their 
lawyers have been denied access to the evidence being used against 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, am I describing the justice system in China? Or in 
Cuba? Or the justice system in post-communist Russia? No! I am, 
unfortunately, describing the American justice system, the very system 
that prides itself on protecting individuals' freedoms and liberties 
and, under the 5th Amendment, the due process right afforded to all 
persons whether they are citizens or immigrants.
  The secret evidence rule was created to allow the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to deport those suspected of terrorist 
activities. I understand the need for America to protect itself from 
the growing terrorist threat. Terrorism will continue to grow as a 
threat, as cowards--both abroad and domestic--look to solve their 
differences with our government by targeting innocent civilians.
  But protection from potential harms is no reason to deprive people of 
their liberty. By adopting the tactics of the enemies of freedom, we 
are losing our own. Depriving one of their liberty is far greater a 
threat to America than terrorists. As Benjamin Franklin once said, 
``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor justice.''
  In addition to depriving individuals of due process rights, secret 
evidence has been used in a discriminatory manner. I have the privilege 
and honor of representing the largest Arab-American community in the 
nation, and I have heard from my constituents of the discriminatory 
application of the secret evidence rule. I would note that in every 
case stemming from the 1996 secret evidence rule, only immigrants of 
Arab descent have been detained. This is wrong, unjust and a gross 
violation of civil rights.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our fundamental American values. 
Let us stand up for justice, liberty and freedom. We must guarantee 
that all persons in America are given the due process rights they are 
afforded in the Constitution. Vote yes on the Campbell-Bonior 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I certainly do 
appreciate the dean of this Congress, this House, eloquently going to 
the floor and explaining why so many of us support this amendment in 
this form.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for this amendment. I am 
delighted to acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of this amendment along 
with several of my colleagues, and as well that the proponents of this 
legislation have done anything that they could to follow regular order, 
that is, that they have been before the Committee on the Judiciary with 
a hearing; and, I might add, a very effective hearing.
  If you would have listened to the recounting of families whose loved 
ones have been locked up for a period of time such as their families 
have disintegrated, they are not able to take care of their normal 
basic needs of housing and food and protecting their children, then you 
would argue as well that we discard the regular order.
  It certainly has come to my attention on this floor today that it is 
easy to throw Members and their positions and the advocacy of their 
position to the rules of this body and discount the importance of their 
issues. I take issue with that, but that will be another day. I will 
see that another day. But I am willing to ignore the regular order 
because this is an amendment that I believe has an important cause, 
and, that is, that if we ask any American what rights they have, they 
believe that they have a right to confront their accuser, they believe 
that they have a right to hear the evidence, and they certainly believe 
that they have a fundamental right to a speedy trial.
  In the case of secret evidence, it reminds me of countries where we 
have heard stories told that people disappear into the night and we 
never see them again. I remember hearing the recounting of the 
President of the United States, President Johnson, calling one of the 
Senators from the State of Mississippi during that time about the three 
civil rights workers that had disappeared, they were missing for 2 
weeks and there was a question about what was going on; and the 
response from that Senator at that time was, ``It's just a bunch of 
rumors. I don't think they're really missing. I just think it's 
something, a publicity stunt.''
  That was the America of that day, when no one cared about people who 
were advocating for civil rights and they could be in a condition of 
peril and have lost their life and some official would represent that 
it was just a

[[Page H5005]]

rumor, it was just something we should discount. That is why we fought 
in this country for civil rights and laws that would protect 
individuals who advocate positions that we might not like. But here now 
we have individuals who just because of their heritage and because of 
maybe some remark or some accusation are being able to be kept without 
a trial, without being able to confront their accuser, and certainly 
without the opportunity to hear the evidence. This is the right 
direction and this is a time to hopefully secure the support of our 
colleagues that regular order should not be the call of the day but 
actually justice.
  Quoting from Supreme Court Justice Jackson in a dissenting opinion in 
Knauff v. Shaughnessy, he said:
  ``The plea that evidence of guilt must be secret is abhorrent to free 
men, because it provides a cloak for the malevolent, the misinformed, 
the meddlesome and the corrupt to play the role of informer undetected 
and uncorrected.''

                              {time}  1945

  I would rather today stand in this body on the side of those who 
believe that this country has a higher moral ground. It does not hide 
people. It does not support missing people and missing evidence. It 
does not put people in corners and leave them to their own devices. 
This is a country that believes in due process and the right to 
confront one's accuser.
  I believe that this legislation and this amendment that addresses a 
minuscule part of this appropriations is the right direction to go. It 
addresses the issue of incarcerating people without their opportunity 
to address the question.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
simply for a question. It is usually our responsibility to fix broken 
problems. Someone might say that this has reached a magnitude that 
warrants this Congress addressing it.
  I know that the gentleman has engaged or been involved in this for a 
long time. Is this of the magnitude, because the gentleman has already 
noted that this takes only a small portion of this appropriations, but 
do you consider this of the magnitude that we need to fix this problem?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is of that magnitude. We know 26 times already this 
process has been used to put people in jail in this country. INS claims 
that there are only 8 left. We do not know that for sure. I think that 
the magnitude was reached the first time that a person in the United 
States of America was put in jail on the basis of evidence he or she 
could not see, certainly if that is not enough for everyone to agree, 
25, 26 people is.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me 
also say that I want to thank the minority whip, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his advocacy, his passion and his leadership. 
We need to vote on this amendment and vote yes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly sensitive to the authorizing on 
appropriations to which the able chairman of the committee, my good 
friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) raised, but I do think 
there are two exceptions in this particular case, the first being a 
major exception, and that is what my good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has referred to; that is, the consequences that 
this particular action has for our basic freedoms as an American 
society.
  The second is that usually when such issues are raised about 
authorizing on an appropriation bill, we have the authorizers come here 
in unanimity, and that is not the case on this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1996, Congress did enact the so-called Antiterrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act, which contained a provision that may 
have been well intended at the time, but which, in fact, was ill-
conceived, encroaching on our cherished constitutional rights against 
secret evidence and anonymous accusers.
  Under this provision, immigrants to this country are being jailed 
based on ``secret evidence,'' and these people are given no opportunity 
to face their accusers as we have so well heard in the debate so far 
this evening, nor are their lawyers allowed to see this so-called 
secret evidence against their clients.
  Today we have an amendment pending that will repeal this unwarranted, 
dangerous celebration of secret evidence, and it is an urgent matter. 
If for no other reason, vote for this amendment, because the 
government's duty is not to win cases, but to see justice done.
  My colleague and a cosponsor of the amendment, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has already adequately described 
as has the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the case of Mr. 
Najjar and others, the tremendous family situations that it has placed 
them in and not being able to see their families, because of their 
being held on secret evidence.
  Recently in New Jersey, a judge ordered the release of an immigrant 
who had been in jail for 19 months based on secret evidence. We heard 
that case already, but here is what the judge said in his action to 
order this man's release and I quote,

       The court cannot justify the Government's attempt to allow 
     persons to be convicted on unsworn testimony of witnesses, a 
     practice which runs counter to the notions of fairness on 
     which our legal system is founded.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am not of a legal mind, as my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who has spoken in favor of this 
amendment, nor do I sit on the Committee on the Judiciary, but this is 
a judge, sworn to uphold the laws of our land, that issued such an 
opinion.
  This individual, as we have already heard, was placed in jail for 19 
months based on testimony of an estranged wife. We have heard often 
about how labels are used in this country and, in this case, we are 
talking about a label; that label being immigrants and how such a label 
can put a man or women behind bars or cause them to be deported or even 
worse.
  Have we forgotten when the label ``Jew'' was attached to a whole 
people and because that was the label given them, it sentenced them to 
concentration camps in most cases absolute death. Have we forgotten 
about the account written in history, and I quote,

       When Hitler attacked the Jews, those who were not a Jew, 
     therefore, were not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the 
     Catholics, those who were not Catholic, therefore, were not 
     concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the 
     industrialists, those who were not a member of the union, 
     therefore were not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and 
     the Protestant church, and there was nobody left to be 
     unconcerned.

  Lest we forget the historic lessons learned from the Spanish 
Inquisition and the Holocaust, let us vote to repeal the secret 
evidence law that attacks those who are labelled as immigrants. If we 
do this, perhaps then our government will never some day come for us.
  It is all about that incrementalism that we heard earlier from the 
gentleman from New York, (Mr. Hinchey). Incrementalism, that is what we 
are talking about here.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there are people in this country and in this 
body who are concerned and we are not going to let this happen. We 
despise the use of secret evidence to put people in jail, to deport 
them from a homeland they have adopted and where they have lived in 
freedom for many years.
  Ask yourselves if our government can legally allow this to happen to 
immigrants, who are living the American dream, when will they come for 
us?
  Be concerned, vote yes for the Bonior-Campbell amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to take a hard look at this issue 
and came to the conclusion that it was time, really overdue time, to 
act; and, therefore, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  The American system of justice is based on the principle of due 
process. This principle is enshrined, and I emphasize that, enshrined 
in the fifth amendment to the Constitution that requires that no person 
shall be deprived of liberty without due process. Indeed, it is 
precisely our Nation's

[[Page H5006]]

commitment to due process that separates our beloved country from 
undemocratic, authoritarian governments in other parts of the world.
  No fewer than four Federal courts have ruled that secret evidence is 
unconstitutional. Secret evidence has allowed people to be held for 
months, even years, without any opportunity to confront their accusers 
or to examine the evidence against them. Too often, secret evidence has 
later turned out to be no evidence at all, but rather unsubstantiated 
hearsay that failed to stand up to the full light of day.
  The use of secret evidence to detain and deport legal immigrants 
should stop. To that end, I have cosponsored H.R. 2121, the Secret 
Evidence Repeal Act. The amendment that we are considering now further 
underscores our determination to terminate this abuse of fundamental 
fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Bonior-
Campbell amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
Bonior-Campbell amendment, which is an absolutely necessary measure to 
root out an on-going government practice which should be offensive to 
all of us as sworn defenders of the Constitution.
  The very idea of ``secret evidence'' should alarm us as a nation that 
cherishes the rule of law. That our government, a government built on 
transparency and due process, should incarcerate people indefinitely 
and by executive fiat, and deprive them of the basis to defend 
themselves, is an affront to the Constitution.
  Our nation's justice system is a source of pride, not because of the 
efficiency of its operations, or its effectiveness in convicting the 
guilty, important as these things are. We are appropriately proud of 
our justice system because of its unyielding insistence on due process 
for the individual against the state; because of its strict adherence 
to Constitutional requirements necessary for government action and 
limitations on state authority. In criminal matters, before the federal 
government deprives anyone, citizen or non-citizen, of their right to 
life, liberty or property, the Constitution demands--demands, not 
requests, not suggests, not proposes--demands, that the government 
detail the charges to be prosecuted; produce its witnesses for cross-
examination; provide compulsory means for the defense to obtain its own 
witnesses; and settle the matter of guilt or innocence by decision of a 
jury of ordinary citizens. This is the American standard of justice.
  Some will argue that detention and treatment of aliens is a category 
of government action apart from Constitutional mandates. I disagree. 
The Constitution is not to be considered mute as a matter of 
convenience. The actions of the executive branch are always bound by 
the strictures of the Constitution; there is no free-play zone for non-
citizens.
  A decision by the Federal Government to deport, to grant asylum or 
residency, or to detain a non-citizen does not exist in some extra-
Constitutional universe. The Executive Branch is not compelled by law 
to hold people on secret evidence. There is no legal obligation for the 
government to detain aliens indefinitely. If the state is concerned 
that judicial proceedings would require the disclosure of classified 
information to the detriment of the nation, the government always has 
the flexibility not to act. Prosecution is a political decision and is 
done at the discretion of the government's attorneys. Hard choices are 
part of life.
  It may be that precluding the use of secret evidence will lead to the 
release of some dangerous individuals. This is a regrettable but 
necessary price we must pay for a free society bound by the rule of 
law. Sometimes releasing the guilty or the dangerous is the unfortunate 
result of limited government. The threat of terrorism is real, and our 
government should do all it can to preempt and punish those who would 
do violence to our people and interests. But in doing so, we must not 
do harm to the Constitution, which is exactly what the use of secret 
evidence does.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bonior-Campbell amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bonior-
Campbell amendment.
  The American system of justice is based on the principle of due 
process. This principle is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution that requires that no person shall be deprived of liberty 
without due process. Indeed, it is precisely our nation's commitment to 
due process that separates the United States from undemocratic, 
authoritarian governments in other parts of the world.
  No fewer than four federal courts have ruled that secret evidence is 
unconstitutional. Secret evidence has allowed people to be held for 
months, even years, without any opportunity to confront their accusers 
or examine the evidence against them. Too often, secret evidence has 
later turned out to be no evidence at all, but rather unsubstantiated 
hearsay that fails to stand up to the full light of day.
  The use of secret evidence to detain and deport legal immigrants must 
stop. To that end, I have cosponsored H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence 
Repeal Act. The amendment we are considering now further underscores 
our determination to end this abuse of fundamental fairness.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bonior-Campbell amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, terrorism is the scourge of the modern 
world, and we must do everything in our power to deter and punish those 
who would commit such heinous acts. Our efforts in Congress must 
include support for all federal agencies and foreign allies who are 
engaged in the fight against terrorist and their protectors. And we 
must continuously seek to improve the laws that enable our democracy to 
effectively counter the threat of terrorism and preserve our freedom.
  In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act in an attempt to further combat terrorism against the 
United States. It also contained provisions that were intended to 
balance legitimate national security interests with our desire--and 
responsibility--to protect individual liberties.
  Since the enactment of this legislation, it has become evident that 
the provisions of law designed to protect individual rights in such 
matters have not been implemented properly. Our government's use of 
``secret evidence'' authorities to detain the accused has caused many 
civil rights advocates to question the constitutionality of these 
practices and to urge for reform.
  The questions raised about the current application of secret evidence 
statutes have been validated recently by four federal courts, which 
have all ruled the practice unconstitutional.
  At a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, both supporters and 
critics of existing secret evidence statutes recognized the 
deficiencies of current practices, as well as the need to reform or 
refine them. There was also agreement that more work is needed to 
sufficiently balance our national security interests with the need to 
protect individual rights.
  The National Commission on Terrorism also concluded earlier this 
month that the legal protections afforded to the accused in these 
circumstances are not being used properly, if at all. The Commission 
further stated that, ``The U.S. Government should not be confronted 
with the dilemma of unconditionally disclosing classified evidence or 
allowing a suspected terrorist to remain at liberty in the United 
States. At the same time, resort to use of secret evidence without 
disclosure even to cleared counsel should be discontinued, especially 
when criminal prosecution through an open court proceeding is an 
option.''
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not result in the release of 
suspected terrorists from America's prisons. If it did, I would oppose 
it vigorously.
  Instead, my support for this minute reduction in the Justice 
Department's budget is intended as a call to the relevant committees of 
Congress to accelerate their deliberations on legislation to refine and 
improve existing laws. It is also a call to our government--and the 
Justice Department in particular--to address the legitimate concerns 
that have been raised about the use of secret evidence without 
appropriate measures to protect individual rights.
  Clearly, it would be a serious mistake to unduly restrict our 
government's ability to protect its citizens against terrorism. At the 
same time, we must find a way to protect the rights of those whom our 
legal system deems innocent until proven guilty. And there must be no 
winners or losers in this debate; otherwise, the critical balance 
between freedom and security that we cherish will be undone. Instead, 
we must all work together to forge a consensus that advances both goals 
in the most effective manner possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, our system of judicial review and due 
process is not a luxury or a gift to be awarded to a chosen few for 
political advantage. It is the very foundation of our system of 
government and justice. The use of secret evidence in INS detention 
proceedings makes a mockery of this basic principle of our legal 
system. I support the Campbell-Bonior Amendment that would eliminate 
funding for detaining defendants based upon secret evidence.
  The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 eliminated court appeal rights relative to judicial review of 
asylum determinations, decisions on apprehension and detention of 
aliens, document fraud waivers, orders issued in a absentia and denial 
of request for voluntary departure. The statute also broadened the 
range of proceedings where secret evidence can be used against an 
immigrant.
  The result has been manifest injustice. No person should be held in 
solitary confinement for nearly three years while trying to defend 
against unknown charges. But that was the

[[Page H5007]]

experience of Nasser Ahmed, a 38-year-old Egyptian. He was denied bond 
and asylum based on secret evidence. When his case was finally heard, 
an immigration judge rejected the secret evidence against him as double 
and triple hearsay.
  If Mr. Ahmed had been allowed to see and respond to the secret 
evidence that the government was using to block his asylum application 
in a timely manner, he could have won his case sooner and been spared 
years of unjust incarceration.
  The experience of Mr. Ahmed is not as isolated incident. Another case 
involves 19-year old Mazen Al-Najjar, a stateless Palestininan in 
Tampa, Florida. He is about the mark his 1,000th day of detention based 
on secret evidence.
  The D.C. Circuit has aptly equated the INS's use of secret evidence 
with the situation of the accused--Joseph K.--from Kafka's book, The 
Trial. Like that character, Mazen Al-Najjar could not only prevail by 
rebuting evidence that he was not permitted to see. The D.C. Circuit 
observed that, ``It would be difficult to imagine how even someone 
innocent of all wrongdoing could meet such a burden.''
  Due process is not just a tool of fairness and equity, it also is an 
efficiency tool that makes national uniformity possible and is an 
essential component of our constitutional system of government. As a 
Congress, we have both a moral and constitutional duty to correct the 
abuses around the use of secret evidence and to ensure that our 
fundamental values of due process are applied fully and without favor. 
The Campbell-Bonior Amendment is a good first step in that direction.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, fire fighters throughout the country risk 
their lives every day to protect our families and safeguard our 
neighborhoods. Last year, over 100 fire fighters died in the line of 
duty.
  The City of Worcester, Massachusetts, in my district, suffered the 
tragic loss of six fire fighters on December 3, 1999. Fire fighters 
Paul Brotherton, Jeremiah Lucey, Timothy Jackson, Jay Lyons, Joseph 
McGuirk and Lieutenant Thomas Spencer. These brave men made the 
ultimate sacrifice and died doing the job that they loved. They left 
behind 17 children, and they left behind a grateful community.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to pick up the July 
issue of Esquire magazine. There is an incredibly well-written and very 
moving account of this terrible tragedy which took place in Worcester.
  Mr. Chairman, this tragedy brought together fire fighters from across 
the Nation and around the world, and we gathered on that day in 
December to honor their memories and pay tribute to their heroism. The 
best way Congress can honor the memory of all fallen fire fighters is 
by working to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again.
  Fire fighters are always there when we need them. We need to return 
this commitment and demonstrate our gratitude for the job that they do, 
and that is why I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
  The Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology is in the process of developing fire safety 
technology that would make firefighting safer. Recent developments in 
the area of infrared sight technology would make it possible for fire 
fighters to more successfully, and safely, maneuver in a burning 
structure filled with thick smoke.
  Had such technology been available to all fire fighters, many recent 
tragedies, such as the loss in Worcester might have been avoided and 
lives could have been saved.
  This amendment would provide the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology with the funds needed to continue the progress they have 
already made in fire safety research and technology. It provides for an 
increase of $1 million to the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at 
the NIST.
  The offset is from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Salaries and 
Expense Account. Last year, approximately $70 million of the bureau's 
almost $4 billion budget went unspent, and it was our goal to use a 
small portion of this overflow to help protect our Nation's fire 
fighters.
  Simply put, this is a modest amendment that will actually save lives. 
I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that our 
fire fighters have access to the most up-to-date technology possible. 
It is the least we can do for these brave individuals who do so much.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment not only has bipartisan support, but it 
is supported by the National Association of State Fire Marshals.
  In conclusion, let me just say that I hope that no Member of this 
Congress will ever have to witness what I did in Worcester last 
December 3. Nothing we can do here today can change that tragedy, but 
we can take a step, albeit a small step, toward trying to prevent such 
catastrophes in the future. We on the Federal level need to do much 
more, I believe, very much more. I think we can do much more.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the McGovern-Pease 
amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I have the 
highest respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and 
the ranking member, but this is a small, small token on behalf of 
America's real heroes.
  The best example of what America is all about are the 1 million men 
and women who serve this country in 32,000 departments every day 
responding to disasters. They do not just respond to fires. They 
respond to hurricanes, to earthquakes, tornados. They respond to subway 
collapses. They respond to highrise conflagrations. They respond to 
HAZMAT incidents, refinery explosions and they have done it for the 
last 250 years, longer than the country's been a country.
  Each year we lose 100 of them, most of them volunteers, because 85 
percent of the 1 million fire fighters in this country are volunteers, 
they are not even paid for what they do. I cannot think of any other 
volunteer group that loses 100 people every year, every year. I have 
been down in that ceremony in Emmitsburg more than I want to be there, 
and I have seen the anguish in the family's eyes of those who have lost 
their loved ones.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke at the D.C. fire fighters' funeral that were 
killed last year in a fire. I understand what our friend and colleague 
is talking about when he talks about the loss of life in his own home 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the least we can do, a million dollars to give 
to the NIST organization to help on the research on thermal imagers. As 
a former volunteer fire chief, I can tell my colleagues the importance 
of thermal imagers. When the fire fighters go into a building and they 
are overcome by smoke, they collapse. There is no way available to go 
in and find them in a smoke-filled room, except for this new 
breakthrough technology that we developed for the military called the 
thermal imager.
  Now, as the chairman of the research committee on the military side, 
I have supported the funding for the research for our military. What 
this funding would do would be to help take that technology and make it 
available for the fire fighters.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues will say wait a minute, the Federal 
Government should not be involved in the fire service; well, hold it. 
Let us get real. This bill has billions of dollars of money for law 
enforcement.
  I am a supporter of the police as a former mayor, but we pay half the

[[Page H5008]]

costs of the vests for police officers who might be shot.

                              {time}  2000

  Cut me a break. We are going to pay for half of the cost of a police 
vest, and we cannot put $1 million into research for thermal imagers 
for fire fighters.
  The last time I checked, law enforcement was a local responsibility. 
We are not talking about $1 million. This bill has billions of dollars 
for local police officers, billions and billions of dollars for local 
police, for training, for equipment, for meetings, half of the cost of 
police vests. But not one dime of money for the Nation's fire fighters. 
Nothing. Nada. And these fire fighters, who are largely volunteer, save 
taxpayers money, because if we do not support them, you are going to 
have to hire full-time paid fire fighters to replace them.
  Every one of my colleagues in this room has fire departments in their 
districts. There are 32,000 departments, in every State, they are in 
every county, they are in the most rural community, and they are in our 
largest urban city, and they all have the same challenges. The least we 
can do is set aside $1 million in an account where there is a surplus 
this year to help get our Federal agency to provide research money to 
take this technology and use it for the fire service itself.
  Billions of dollars for law enforcement, which I support; nothing for 
the fire fighters of this Nation. The only pittance we put forward is 
about $30 million a year for the U.S. Fire Administration and the NATA 
Fire Training Center at Emmitsburg. That is it.
  Yes, we have a responsibility. I say to my colleagues, this is an 
easy vote. If we cannot support something like this, a bipartisan 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), and my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), then 
shame on us.
  I say to this body, support the real heroes in America, the unsung 
heroes. Support the men and women of the fire service, who day in and 
day out protect your towns, who protect your cities. Most of them do it 
as volunteers.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with an acknowledgment of my gratitude 
to the chairman and the ranking member and to acknowledge publicly my 
greater understanding and much greater appreciation for the challenge 
that they face in and the work that they do in preparing a bill to 
bring to this floor. The work that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) has given leadership to and which I have supported is 
only one very small piece of a very large bill, and the difficulties 
that we have encountered in trying to balance priorities only makes me 
appreciate more the difficulties the committee faces in trying to 
balance their priorities every day.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on this very important issue and thank him 
for the work he has done and for including me and others in that work.
  What we hope to do with this amendment is to continue the work of 
NIST in infrared technology for fire safety and those people that 
defend us and our property on a daily basis. It is a $1 million 
appropriation. It comes from the Bureau of Prisons.
  I have this greater appreciation of their difficulties, if for no 
other reason than I have a very large Federal prison in my district 
which I have given great support to. But the fact is the Bureau of 
Prisons last year did not expend over $70 million of their S&E budget. 
This is 1.5 percent of their unspent funds from last year, which seems 
to us a minimal amount and, quite honestly, a very reasonable amount to 
invest in fire safety on behalf of those many folks who defend us and 
defend our property on a daily basis.
  If I could engage the chairman in a colloquy on this issue, I would 
like to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I 
have spoken with you and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and 
the staffs of the committee about your continued willingness to work 
with us on this issue. We know it is a challenge, just from work we 
have done in the last few days.
  My question is whether the chairman and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) are willing to continue to work with us as this bill 
progresses on this issue, understanding that no final commitments can, 
of course, be made at this moment?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PEASE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will be delighted to work with the 
gentleman. The gentleman has raised a very important issue in this 
amendment, and we will be delighted to continue to work with the 
gentleman as the bill progresses through the House and conference with 
the Senate in addressing the issue that the gentleman has brought up.
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I, as a sign of our 
good faith in your willingness to continue to work with us and with the 
fire fighters on this issue, have discussed withdrawing the amendment 
at this time, but before I make that commitment, I would like to yield 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for a moment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PEASE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for his 
support of this amendment. I want to thank the chairman for his 
generosity, as well as the ranking member. I feel passionately about 
this issue because this terrible tragedy happened in my city, and I 
continue to see the faces of those kids who lost their fathers in that 
terrible fire. I made a commitment to them that I would do everything I 
possibly could to make sure that their loved ones did not die in vain. 
So I appreciate the gentleman's commitment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word as the 
author of legislation that relies on research such as that being fought 
for right now on the floor. I commend Mr. McGovern and Mr. Pease.
  My legislation, the ``Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement 
Act,'' or ``The Fire Bill,'' will provide competitive grants directly 
to the over 32,000 paid, part-paid and volunteer fire departments 
across America.
  The money could be used for personnel, equipment, vehicles, training, 
health and safety initiatives and prevention programs.
  The Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) is in the process of developing fire 
safety technology that would make fire fighting safer.
  They are developing precisely the equipment that I wrote my bill to 
enable fire fighters around the country to purchase. This equipment 
will make fire fighting safer.
  For example, NIST is developing infrared sight technology that will 
make it possible for firefighters to successfully, and safely, operate 
in a burning structure filled with thick smoke.
  Had such technology been available to firefighters, many recent 
tragedies could have been avoided and lives could have been saved.
  The McGovern-Pease amendment would provides $1,000,000 to the NIST to 
help them continue their work in this area.
  I have said before that our firefighters are the forgotten part of 
our public safety equation. Congress should make a commitment to those 
who make a commitment to us every single day.
  We need to show that it is no longer acceptable to pay lipservice to 
the firefighters in our districts on the weekend. . . . and not put our 
money where our mouth is during the week.
  That is why you must vote in favor of the McGovern-Pease amendment. 
By supporting this funding, you will be laying the groundwork for safe 
fire fighters by enabling NIST to continue to develop the best 
technology to protect them.
  I urge you all to support our fire fighters by supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment. Hopefully, we can work this out.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling, and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force

[[Page H5009]]

     account; and constructing, remodeling, and equipping 
     necessary buildings and facilities at existing penal and 
     correctional institutions, including all necessary expenses 
     incident thereto, by contract or force account, $835,660,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $14,000,000 shall be available to construct areas for inmate 
     work programs: Provided, That labor of United States 
     prisoners may be used for work performed under this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and 
     Facilities'' in this or any other Act may be transferred to 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison System, upon 
     notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of 
     this Act.


                Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated

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


   Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries, 
                              Incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,429,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           Justice Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''), 
     and the Missing Children's Assistance Act, as amended, 
     including salaries and expenses in connection therewith, and 
     with the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended, 
     $155,611,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by section 1001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by Public 
     Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary of the Committee on 
Appropriations in a brief colloquy.
  I rise to commend the subcommittee for generously increasing funding 
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service budget so this new agency 
can hire new inspectors to serve at our Nation's airports. While I am 
supportive of this increase, I am concerned about the disparity of INS 
inspector staffing that exists between the New York Metropolitan 
Airport relative to other airports.
  Detroit Metro Airport desperately needs additional inspectors. The 
INS has not kept up with the great increase of passengers at this 
booming airport, and has let the number of staff at Detroit decrease 
relative to other international airports. Hartsfield Atlanta 
International Airport has 2.1 million inspections per year with 78 
inspectors on staff. Both Dallas Fort Worth and Dulles International 
Airports each have 2 million inspections each year, with 78 and 74 
inspectors on staff respectively. In comparison, Detroit Metro Airport 
has 1.8 million inspections per year with only 47 inspectors. Relative 
to other major airports, Detroit inspectors have to process almost 40 
percent more people per inspector. Clearly the INS has understaffed the 
Detroit Metro Airport.
  I had requested the chairman correct this problem by allocating 
specific inspectors to Detroit Metro Airport. I can appreciate the 
difficulty of my request and the committee's position that they cannot 
earmark new inspectors for individual airports. However, I am 
encouraged that the report language dealing with this account says: 
``The recommendation includes $18,489,000 for adjustments to base; and 
$12,186,000, 154 positions and 77 FTE to increase primary inspectors at 
new airport terminals. INS is expected to consult with the committee 
prior to the deployment of these new positions.''
  I ask for assurances from the chairman of the subcommittee that when 
the INS consults with the subcommittee, he will specifically encourage 
the INS to address the staffing problems, the staffing shortfall, in 
Detroit, and give the airport due consideration for these new 
positions.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate the gentleman's interest in the issue and his understanding 
that the subcommittee cannot specify how many inspectors should be 
allocated to individual airports across the country. It is best to 
leave those decisions to the INS. But the gentleman is correct, we have 
specifically asked that the INS consult with this subcommittee before 
they locate the new agents that we fund in this act.
  I agree with the gentleman that the Detroit Metropolitan Airport is 
understaffed relative to other airports, and I assure the gentleman 
that they will receive due consideration from this subcommittee during 
the consultation process with the INS.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his assurance. I look forward to working with him on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, for grants, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by sections 819, 821, and 822 of the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 
     $152,000,000, to remain available until expended.


               State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 
     Act''), $2,823,950,000, to remain available until expended; 
     of which $523,000,000 shall be for Local Law Enforcement 
     Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on February 14, 1995, except that for 
     purposes of this Act, Guam shall be considered a ``State'', 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be considered a ``unit 
     of local government'' as well as a ``State'', for the 
     purposes set forth in paragraphs (A), (B), (D), (F), and (I) 
     of section 101(a)(2) of H.R. 728 and for establishing crime 
     prevention programs involving cooperation between community 
     residents and law enforcement personnel in order to control, 
     detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals: 
     Provided, That no funds provided under this heading may be 
     used as matching funds for any other Federal grant program: 
     Provided further, That $50,000,000 of this amount shall be 
     for Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing facilities and 
     other areas in cooperation with State and local law 
     enforcement: Provided further, That funds may also be used to 
     defray the costs of indemnification insurance for law 
     enforcement officers: Provided further, That $20,000,000 
     shall be available to carry out section 102(2) of H.R. 728; 
     of which $420,000,000 shall be for the State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program, as authorized by section 242( j) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; of which 
     $686,500,000 shall be for Violent Offender Incarceration and 
     Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants pursuant to subtitle A 
     of title II of the 1994 Act, of which $165,000,000 shall be 
     available for payments to States for incarceration of 
     criminal aliens, and of which $35,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Cooperative Agreement Program; of which $552,000,000 
     shall be for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
     other assistance authorized by part E of title I of the 1968 
     Act, for State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice 
     Assistance Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 511 of said Act, as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of said Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 
     Stat. 3524), of which $52,000,000 shall be available to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of 
     title I of said Act, for discretionary grants under the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Programs; of which $9,000,000 shall be for the 
     Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, as authorized by 
     section 218 of the 1990 Act; of which $2,000,000 shall be for 
     Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel and 
     Practitioners, as authorized by section 224 of the 1990 Act; 
     of which $207,750,000 shall be for Grants to Combat Violence 
     Against Women, to States, units of local government, and 
     Indian tribal governments, as authorized by section 
     1001(a)(18) of the 1968 Act, including $35,250,000 which 
     shall be used exclusively for the purpose of strengthening 
     civil legal assistance programs for victims of domestic 
     violence: Provided, That, of these funds,

[[Page H5010]]

     $5,200,000 shall be provided to the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women, and $10,000,000 shall be available to the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe 
     Start Program, to be administered as authorized by part C of 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974, as amended; 
     of which $34,000,000 shall be for Grants to Encourage Arrest 
     Policies to States, units of local government, and Indian 
     tribal governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) of 
     the 1968 Act; of which $25,000,000 shall be for Rural 
     Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance 
     Grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act; of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be for training programs to assist 
     probation and parole officers who work with released sex 
     offenders, as authorized by section 40152(c) of the 1994 Act, 
     and for local demonstration projects; of which $1,000,000 
     shall be for grants for televised testimony, as authorized by 
     section 1001(a)(7) of the 1968 Act; of which $63,000,000 
     shall be for grants for residential substance abuse treatment 
     for State prisoners, as authorized by section 1001(a)(17) of 
     the 1968 Act; of which $900,000 shall be for the Missing 
     Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as authorized by 
     section 240001(c) of the 1994 Act; of which $1,300,000 shall 
     be for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, as authorized 
     by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; of which $40,000,000 
     shall be for Drug Courts, as authorized by title V of the 
     1994 Act; of which $1,500,000 shall be for Law Enforcement 
     Family Support Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) 
     of the 1968 Act; of which $2,000,000 shall be for public 
     awareness programs addressing marketing scams aimed at senior 
     citizens, as authorized by section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act; 
     and of which $250,000,000 shall be for Juvenile 
     Accountability Incentive Block Grants, except that such funds 
     shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set 
     forth in the provisions under this heading for this program 
     in Public Law 105-119, but all references in such provisions 
     to 1998 shall be deemed to refer instead to 2001 and Guam 
     shall be considered a ``State'' for the purposes of title III 
     of H.R. 3, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 
     8, 1977: Provided further, That funds made available in 
     fiscal year 2001 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 
     1968 Act may be obligated for programs to assist States in 
     the litigation processing of death penalty Federal habeas 
     corpus petitions and for drug testing initiatives: Provided 
     further, That, if a unit of local government uses any of the 
     funds made available under this title to increase the number 
     of law enforcement officers, the unit of local government 
     will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement 
     officers who perform nonadministrative public safety service.

                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 27, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $49,500,000)''.
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $49,500,000)''.
       Page 43, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $49,500,000)''.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to express my appreciation to 
the chairman of the subcommittee for the very diligent and effective 
work that he has done in putting this bill together and bringing it to 
the floor. And I am sure the vast majority of the Members of the House 
very much appreciate the effort and energy and wisdom that has gone 
into putting this bill together.
  I have a very modest change that I would like to make in the bill. 
This change would take $49.5 million out of prison construction and 
transfer it to the Economic Development Administration.
  I know that the chairman and other Members of the House have a keen 
appreciation for the very valuable work that is done by EDA. EDA, in 
many regards, is one of the most effective economic engines that we 
have in the Federal Government. Not only has it provided over the years 
a substantial number of loans and other economic incentives for 
communities around the country, but all of that money that EDA has put 
in, the public money, has generated enormous amounts of private 
investment that have far and away by orders of magnitude surpassed the 
amount of funds that were provided from public sources. Many jobs have 
been created, much wealth has been created, and economic growth has 
been experienced in communities all across the country as a result of 
the work of EDA.
  The EDA in this particular budget is flatlined essentially from last 
year, and it is my hope that the chairman and the majority of the 
Members of the House will join me in accepting this amendment to take 
$49.5 million out of prison construction and put it into the good work 
that can be accomplished through EDA. Even with the removal of this 
$489.5 million from prison construction, there will still remain $637 
million for the construction and upgrading of prisons around the 
country.
  I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that we may be spending too much 
on prison construction. We have now in this country almost 2 million 
people locked behind bars; and it seems that the more prisons we 
construct, the more people we find to fill them.
  I believe that we ought to engage in this effort, which, while taking 
some small amount of money from prison construction, will put it into 
the kinds of efforts that will generate jobs, and hopefully thereby 
will alleviate the need for additional prison space and will reduce the 
number of people who find themselves in that situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with a great deal of respect and 
admiration for the work that has been accomplished in this bill, and I 
hope that the chairman and the majority of the Members will join me in 
supporting it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

                              {time}  2015

  This amendment would cut State local law enforcement assistance 
grants to provide an additional $49 million for the Economic 
Development Grant programs.
  Specifically, this amendment would cut the Criminal Alien Assistance 
program. That is a program that reimburses States for a portion of 
their costs in jailing criminal aliens. It is a program that is widely 
supported by the Members of this body, by the governors, by mayors, and 
local law enforcement people throughout the country. It is especially 
critical along the southwest border where the criminal alien population 
is exploding and the States need some financial assistance from the 
U.S. Government to fund the jailing costs for jailing not just illegal 
immigrants, but criminal illegal aliens.
  This amendment does not state what the increased funding would be 
used for; just to be put into the EDA.
  We already provide in the bill, Mr. Chairman, $362 million for the 
EDA that goes to provide assistance to communities that are struggling 
with long-term economic downturns as well as sudden and severe economic 
downturns. This committee and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure have worked with EDA to reauthorize the program, to 
reform the EDA, to ensure that monies that we provide are targeted to 
the most severely distressed areas. Without EDA, these communities 
would have little access to resources for critical infrastructure 
development and capacity building. The funding in this bill is 
sufficient to provide the seed capital to distressed areas to allow 
those local communities to increase their ability to create new 
economic opportunities.
  So this committee, we think, has provided sufficient resources for 
the EDA, and, on top of that, I am deeply opposed to cutting the 
assistance to our States and localities in dealing with jailing the 
criminal illegal aliens that they are having to imprison, and they 
blame the U.S. for not protecting the borders to keep those people out 
in the first place.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear of what my 
intentions are here in this amendment. My intentions are that the money 
that I am suggesting, $49.5 million to be put into the Economic 
Development Administration, be taken out of the construction program 
for prisons; not for the purposes which the chairman was addressing, 
but wholly, completely and exclusively from the amount of money that 
has been provided for prison construction.
  Now, that amount is very substantial, $687 million. We would leave 
$637 million. But the money that I am seeking to take out would be 
funding that would come only exclusively and wholly from the 
construction program and nothing but the construction program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is an equally

[[Page H5011]]

dangerous place to take money. The State prison grant program is a 
program that we passed here to encourage States to imprison people for 
70 percent of their sentence. Many States have taken advantage of that 
and secured these State prison construction funds, and we are still 
shorthanded. That fund is underfunded as it is. We were not able to 
fully fund the State prison assistance grant program, so I would object 
very strongly to taking the money, equally strongly, out of that 
account. On top of that, again, the money that the gentleman would 
place in EDA is not specified as to what it would be used for, and, as 
I say I think we have adequately funded EDA already.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Scott

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

       Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 27, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $60,812,500)''.
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $121,625,000)''.
       Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $60,812,500)''.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) to transfer one-half, or 
approximately $122 million, of Truth in Sentencing prison grant funds 
to Boys and Girls Clubs and drug court programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called ``truth''-in-sentencing is actually a 
``half-truth''-in-sentencing. Proponents of truth-in-sentencing will 
tell us that nobody gets out early. That is the half truth. The whole 
truth is that no one is held longer, either.
  When States adopt truth-in-sentencing schemes, the first thing they 
do is to reduce the length of sentences that judges have been giving 
out under the parole system and then direct the defendant to serve all 
of the reduced sentence.
  For example, under a parole system, if a judge says 10 years, the 
average defendant will serve about 3\1/2\ years. Some will get out 
earlier, some will get out later. The more dangerous criminals can be 
held longer. But under truth-in-sentencing, everybody gets 3\1/2\ 
years. Those who could have gotten out early are held to the full 3\1/
2\ years, but those who could not have made parole, those that would 
have served 10 years, get out in the same 3\1/2\ years.
  The problem is that the lower-risk prisoners will serve more time and 
the most dangerous will serve less time. Even if we were to double the 
average time served and double the prison budget so that everybody 
serves 7 years, the worst criminals will still get out earlier than 
they would under the parole system.
  So under truth-in-sentencing, the less dangerous criminals get 
punished severely, but actually rewards the most dangerous, hardened 
criminals who could never have made parole.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we know that prison education and job 
training are the most effective ways of reducing the chances that 
someone might return to a life of crime after they get out. But when we 
abolish parole, we eliminate the incentive they had to get that 
education and job training, and that is why a Rand study last year 
concluded that truth-in-sentencing does not reduce crime.
  Finally, not all States qualify for truth-in-sentencing grants, 
whereas all States qualify for crime prevention programs. And the few 
States that do qualify for truth-in-sentencing funds can only use those 
funds for prison construction.
  At this point, some States have actually overbuilt prison space. My 
own State of Virginia, in fact, is trying to lease out prison beds to 
other States. We have an excess of about 3,000 excess prison beds that 
we are trying to lease out. So there is no reason for us to give money 
to States to build prison beds that they do not even need.
  Mr. Chairman, States are already spending tens of billions of dollars 
on prison construction every year, so this $121 million spread out 
amongst the 30 or so States that qualify for truth-in-sentencing funds 
cannot possibly make any measurable difference in the number of beds 
built and, in fact, like the Rand study concluded, cannot make any 
measurable difference in crime. But if that money is spent on boys and 
girls clubs and drug courts, we can certainly make a difference in the 
crime rate.
  We know that housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs experience a 
dramatic decline in drug activity. In fact, Boys and Girls Club 
participants had less truancy and were more likely to graduate from 
high school. The Department of Justice reports the presence of Boys and 
Girls Clubs in public housing reduced juvenile crime 13 percent and 
reduced drug use 22 percent. Studies of drug court programs have 
repeatedly shown that drug offenders subject to drug court programs 
have a lower recidivism rate than those who are sentenced to prison. 
Studies have shown that the drug courts are so effective, in fact, that 
they save more money than they cost.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop throwing money away on bad crime 
policy. The evidence shows that truth-in-sentencing has not reduced 
crime, but we do know that drug courts and Boys and Girls Clubs will 
reduce crime, and that is why I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for his 
leadership on this issue and also thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their hard work on this appropriations bill.
  I am a supporter of judicial discretion, and I am also a supporter of 
tough penalties for those who commit violent crimes. But I am also a 
supporter of prevention and intervention programs that work, 
particularly programs for children, and I have seen them work in my own 
State.
  In the period from 1993 to 1997 in this country, we did a lot of 
prison construction. That era is largely over in this country, and in 
many States, there is an excess of prison beds. The truth-in-sentencing 
money that is available through the Federal Government is not available 
to all States, and many States have exhausted their intentions to build 
more prison space. I believe it is far beyond time to shift our 
priorities to pragmatic things that work, and I think we have 
identified two in this budget that deserve more emphasis than they are 
currently getting in the budget as it is constructed.
  The first is drug courts. It is a growing trend in justice in this 
country. There are about 300 drug court programs now in America, and 
they are growing every year, commingling together grants from private 
sources and money from administrative offices of the courts. The idea 
is with judicial supervision for somebody on parole, for somebody who 
is committed to trying to turn their life around, who is willing to 
undergo random drug testing, who will accept escalating sanctions and 
treatment and incentives to try to get them back on the right track and 
get them clean.
  The good thing about them is that they are working. It is that 
combination of treatment, immediate sanctions, and incentives, with a 
lot of supervision, that is working, and it is working in my hometown 
of Albuquerque, where we not only have started an adult drug court, and 
the judge there who is doing very well with it, but we are looking at 
expanding that to other parts of the State and also starting a juvenile 
drug court to reach kids earlier.
  The other program that does work and I think needs to be supported 
deals with kids. I used to be the head of the Children Youth and 
Families Department in the State of New Mexico. We had responsibility 
for child welfare and also for the juvenile justice system.
  Kids need a safe place to be, and they need a caring, responsible 
adult in their lives. All of us would hope that that responsible adult 
is a parent or a

[[Page H5012]]

 grandparent, but it is not always that way.
  There are a lot of programs that deal with kids that provide mentors 
for kids: 4-H and the Boy Scouts and children's youth groups at church, 
and Future Farmers of America; we have seen them all in all of our 
communities. But the things that the Boys and Girls Clubs seems to do 
better than most is reach the kids in most need. They are in the 
housing projects. Sixty-one percent of the kids in Boys and Girls Clubs 
are minority; half of them come from single-parent families. They are 
in 50 States and in Puerto Rico and in the Virgin Islands and serve 3.1 
million children in America, giving them a safe place to be and 
positive, caring adult role models and constructive things to do.
  I met a lot of kids, mostly boys, in the juvenile justice system in 
the State of New Mexico. Most of them were involved in gangs. Half of 
them had a parent with a drug or alcohol problem.

                              {time}  2030

  Almost all of them had little or no contact with their dads. 
Sometimes they were tough, violent thugs. Then, in a moment, you would 
see a boy.
  We need to work with these kids while we still have the chance to 
help them turn their lives around before they throw them away and send 
all of us the bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Local Law Enforcement 
Block Grant by $60.8 million, and that program is critical to our State 
and local law enforcement fight against crime. It is a very popular 
program with local communities.
  The amendment would add funding to the Boys and Girls Clubs to help 
at-risk youth and increase funding for the drug courts, both of which 
this subcommittee has dramatically increased funding for over the last 
couple of years.
  In fact, more funding has been provided in our bill for these 
activities than was requested of us by the administration. At-risk 
youth funding includes $50 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs. That 
is up from I think it was $40 million a couple of years ago. There are 
$250 million for Juvenile Accountability Block Grants that the 
Administration proposed to eliminate altogether, and there are $287 
million for Juvenile Justice programs. Those amounts do not include the 
nearly $200 million that is in the COPS program for school violence 
programs.
  So we have funded and funded and funded programs for at-risk youth. 
We have also funded big increases for drug courts. That has been one of 
the shining examples of bipartisan cooperation here in this body in our 
subcommittee, because drug courts have come from nowhere in the last 3 
years in funding.
  Our bill includes $40 million in direct appropriation for the drug 
courts program. It also includes $523 million for the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grants, again, which the administration proposed to 
eliminate. Historically, communities spend between $10 million and $15 
million of their local law enforcement block grants on drug courts each 
year.
  Our bill also includes $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability 
Block Grant program, which could be used to fund the juvenile drug 
courts. This program is also proposed to be eliminated by the 
Administration.
  As for reducing the State Prison Grant program, which this amendment 
would also do, a Bureau of Justice Assistance report from last year 
concluded that the requirements of a State Prison Grant program have 
resulted in increases in the time violent offenders actually served 
behind bars. This program keeps our streets safe by keeping violent 
offenders behind bars.
  There may be several reasons for the recent drop in violent crime. 
The fact remains, whether we like it or not, prison works. We now have 
the lowest level of violent crime in America's recorded history. A good 
part of that is because we have beefed up these accounts in this bill 
against amendments just like this.
  Historic figures show that after incarceration rates have increased, 
crime rates have moderated. The need for additional prison capacity 
remains. While some States may have excess prison capacities, others 
are a long way from reducing their overcrowding problems.
  So to conclude, Mr. Chairman, in total, our bill provides increases 
over the Administration's request for at-risk youth and drug courts, 
and we have to fulfill our commitment to the States to continue the 
State Prison Grant funding program, which we promised them in our law a 
few years back. I urge a rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, the amendment was 
designed to take money out of the truth-in-sentencing grant and not the 
law enforcement block grant, but specifically, just the truth-in-
sentencing grant money that all States do not even qualify for.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman may have improperly drafted the amendment, 
because he may intend to cut from something else, but the fact is that 
he cut the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.
  Mr. SCOTT. We asked Legislative Services to draft it such that only 
the truth-in-sentencing block grant was implicated, and we have been 
advised by them that that is what it does.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Scott, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, one of the points of 
confusion may be here that this is the Scott-Wilson second amendment, 
not the first amendment. The money is taken from page 28, line 5, which 
I think is the truth-in-sentencing grant.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, I am sure the intent is as the 
gentleman has said, but the earmark increased the amount for Boys and 
Girls Clubs, which is an earmark within the local law enforcement block 
grant program, but they did not increase the local law enforcement 
block grant program by that amount, which means that the money is 
coming out of the local law enforcement block grant program. So that is 
the effect of the amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the reduction is on page 28, line 5.
  Mr. ROGERS. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, regardless of this question, 
the fact remains that we have funded the Boys and Girls Clubs 
generously in the bill, and we have funded the drug courts generously 
in the bill, and the cuts that the gentleman is proposing would come 
from programs that are desperately needed and underfunded as they are.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a rejection of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Scott

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

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 27, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would move $10 million from 
the truth-in-sentencing prison grant funding to the community-oriented 
police services crime identification technology program. The money

[[Page H5013]]

would be there for use of States to use for eliminating their DNA 
testing backlogs, including the backlog of rape evidence cases.
  Mr. Chairman, I would advise the minority that the Congressional 
Quarterly inadvertently said it came out of another fund, but the 
amendment is supposed to come out of the truth-in-sentencing money and 
go to the community-oriented policing services crime identification 
technology program.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, DNA has moved the role of 
forensic laboratories from bit player to star player in the criminal 
justice system. I am proud to say that my State of Virginia has been a 
leader in the use of DNA evidence. Our crime lab, under the 
professional direction of Paul Ferrara, was one of the first to use DNA 
testing for criminal justice purposes.
  Not only has the DNA analysis proved to be an efficient and 
convincing way of identifying perpetrators of serious and sometimes 
heinous crimes, but it has also proved a convincing way to exonerate 
the wrongfully accused and sometimes imprisoned individuals.
  For example, DNA played a prominent role in the recent moratorium on 
executions instituted by the Governor of Illinois after the Innocence 
Project established that 13 people on death row in that State were 
actually innocent. It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, to have an innocent 
person wrongly convicted, Mr. Chairman, but it also means that the real 
perpetrator remains free to commit more crimes.
  Just this morning a man from Montgomery County, Maryland, a few miles 
from here, was released from rape and murder charges based on DNA 
analysis, and another person who was currently being held on the charge 
of rape in another case was apparently implicated.
  Currently there are hundreds of thousands of collected but untested 
DNA samples from offenders and suspects from around the country. Last 
week during consideration of a bill to address the backlog our 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), reported that New 
York City alone has over 16,000 unprocessed rape kits.
  No one in this House, Mr. Chairman, has been a stronger advocate for 
more funds for DNA testing than our friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  None of the proposals before the House at this time are sufficient to 
address the backlog fully, but several bills are being considered by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, and one of which was reported from 
subcommittee included a $10 million authorization, and therefore, the 
$10 million request in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the truth-in-sentencing prison grant program can only 
be used for prison construction, so the money is sending tens of 
millions of dollars to a few eligible States, some of which, like my 
State of Virginia, do not even need the money for that purpose.
  Virginia has thousands of beds that it rents out to other States or 
keeps empty. Other States have accumulated truth-in-sentencing money 
because they are not currently building prisons, and many States do not 
even qualify for any of the money at all, but all of the States qualify 
for DNA testing and have DNA testing backlogs.
  Mr. Chairman, tragically, because of the DNA backlog, thousands of 
individuals who have committed serious crimes remain free while police 
waste their time, as well as waste the time and lives of innocent 
suspects.
  In the meanwhile, we are sending money for States for prison 
building, whether they need it or not. To add insults to injury, a 
recent study by the Rand Corporation on truth-in-sentencing prison 
incentive programs concluded that it was not reducing crime at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would better prioritize our scarce 
resources for protecting public safety and properly administering 
criminal justice by putting them first to use in sorting the guilty 
from the innocent and apprehending the guilty.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is already in this bill in the COPS program $130 
million for the Criminal Identification Technology Act, the CITA 
programs, which the gentleman has just described, very vital to the 
Nation's criminal system. The COPS program includes $130 million. There 
is plenty of money there.
  The way the States go after that money, they go through the Office of 
Justice Programs, which administers the COPS grants. The money then 
goes to the local areas. The distribution is equitable across 
geographic lines. So there is already money there.
  Number two, the gentleman's amendment would again cut the State 
Prison Grant program, a commitment made by this Congress years ago to 
help States build prisons to house the State prisoners, provided they 
require the prisoners to stay there for a goodly percentage of the time 
they were sentenced for.
  So I would urge that we reject this amendment. There is already 
plenty of money in the CITA program, within the COPS program 
administered by OJP, and the cuts would come from every State in the 
Union participating in the State prison construction program.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment to address the 
enormous DNA backlog problem that police departments have all across 
the country. While we have heard many comments about how there is money 
in this program or that program, the Scott amendment specifically 
targets the DNA backlog.
  I have been working on this issue for some time, and last fall the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ramstad) and I introduced a bill to cut down on the DNA backlogs 
that exist in our police departments all across the country.
  We have been successful in getting this issue heard, and now I hope 
tonight we will be successful in getting this issue funded.
  I am pleased to report that the Subcommittee on Crime of the 
Committee on the Judiciary has been moving this issue forward, thanks 
to the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and other 
Members of the Committee.
  Right now State and local police departments cannot deal with the 
number of DNA samples from convicted offenders and unsolved crimes. 
These States simply do not have enough time, money, or resources to 
test and record these samples.

                              {time}  2045

  In Michigan, my home State, from 1998 to 1999, around 5,000 samples 
sit on a shelf unanalyzed. In Virginia, where the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) is, 191,762 cases of DNA sit in the backlog. In 
California, 132,000 cases sit unanalyzed. The source of this 
information is the FBI Lab Survey of Criminal Laboratories in the 
summer of 1999. Nationwide, that backlog is over 700,000 cases.
  Unanalyzed and unrecorded DNA samples are useless to law enforcement 
and to criminal investigators.
  An example, John Doe is a convicted offender serving time for sexual 
assault. By law, his DNA has been collected. But because of the 
backlog, it has not been tested and is not in the law enforcement 
database. John Doe gets out of jail, he commits another sexual assault, 
and gets away, unidentified by the victim. Even if the police collect 
his DNA from the crime scene, he will not be caught, and his DNA will 
not be matched up, because his previous DNA sample is sitting on the 
shelf somewhere waiting to be tested. John Doe will stay on the 
streets, and he will commit more crimes.
  We need these funds. Because every day that goes by, a real John Doe 
is out there, committing more rapes, robberies, murders, when he could 
have been stopped if we just put a little bit of resources into the DNA 
backlog.
  This amendment answers a call by the police, communities, and 
victims. We need to stop the criminals that until now have been able to 
strike and strike again at our society without being caught.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.

[[Page H5014]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has offered. Mr. Chairman, we have spent too short 
a time dealing with the questions of innocence. We have spent a lot of 
time putting the burden of proof on the defendant when it actually 
should be on the prosecution in a criminal case. That is the system of 
governing that we have that the State comes into the courtroom with a 
burden. That burden is enhanced by the technology and the equipment 
that our law enforcement officers have.
  I am delighted to see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) stand 
as a former police officer and head of the Law Enforcement Caucus. I 
think there is no question that our law enforcement officers want to be 
able to investigate with the tools that will allow them to find the 
perpetrator, the one who committed the crime, versus the innocent. Law 
enforcement officers are committed to making sure that the victims are 
not further victimized.
  I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has a very good 
amendment, because, in fact, we have seen in hearings and data of the 
backlog of the need for DNA testing, whether it is from a rape charge 
or whether it is in another charge.
  I have been on this floor today because this is the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill; but at the same time, we are 
dealing with an execution pending in the State of Texas. In that case, 
with Mr. Graham, there was no physical evidence and no need for DNA 
testing. There was, however, ballistics testing that was never 
presented in his trial.
  It is clear that we have a broken system when we cannot find the 
support elements that are needed for law enforcement and for our legal 
justice system to go into court armed with the strongest evidence that 
presents the innocence or guilt of the individual being tried.
  I believe that a mere $11 million is truly an insufficient amount to 
add to the question of helping to aid in someone's innocence. I would 
ask that our colleagues support the Scott amendment. It is a good 
amendment, and it adds to the justice for which we all advocate.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in a nondescript building in Long Island City, in 
Queens, in New York City, a warehouse, in fact, evidence from crime 
scenes is collected and stored. It is everything from people who had 
sold umbrellas and videotapes illegally on the streets to people who 
had committed more serious crimes.
  In the back of this warehouse are two giant refrigerated rooms, 
larger than one would find in any restaurant. In those rooms is a hall 
of horrors, 16,000 rape kits, evidence that was collected at rape 
scenes. Each one of those kits represents a crime waiting to be solved. 
Each one of those kits represents a woman who was victimized who has 
not found justice.
  The reason they are stored there is they are awaiting DNA tests. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) spoke eloquently about the need to 
clear the backlog of those who are convicted offenders who have given 
their blood to be loaded on to the crime computers for evidence. But 
every one of those evidence kits is also awaiting analysis, DNA 
analysis to be matched hopeful to find the criminal who committed those 
crimes.
  Unfortunately, the bill that we are considering today does nothing to 
assure that any dollars, not even a single one would necessarily go to 
the localities to help them deal with that backlog. They have that 
backlog in New York City and elsewhere because of money, plain and 
simple. It is more expensive to test evidence than it is to convict 
offenders.
  The present block grant system which provides money to the States 
could very easily not trickle down at all to localities, because that 
is the way it is happening now. In fact, the present law that allows 
the money to be used for convicted offenders does not allow it to be 
used to test evidence kits. It does not allow localities to get access 
to the money to test to find out if we can match that crime scene with 
someone who is already in our prisons who has passed through the system 
in the past.
  That is why the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
is so very valuable. It is just the tip of the iceberg. $10 million is 
even less than some of the bills that we are marking up in the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  I believe that it is a small incremental step. I must confess that I 
regret that it has come from the source it is coming from. This entire 
bill, the levels, it is kind of like taking one tiny level and reducing 
it to even a tinier level to make one almost invisible level visible.
  But the fact remains this is a problem that needs to be solved. It is 
also a problem that we cannot afford to wait on. Virtually every State 
in the Union has statute of limitation laws governing rape and sexual 
abuse. The clock is ticking. Every single day in New York, six rape 
kits, six groups of evidence, six women awaiting justice are not able 
to get the justice because we do not have the resources to test those 
kits.
  Now, some prosecutors have become innovative and have started 
indicting and pressing charges against John Doe, just filing charges 
against DNA and nothing else. But this amendment is a small and modest 
step to allow us to begin to do some of this DNA analysis.
  I have got to tell my colleagues the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) who just spoke about this being used to exonerate the 
innocent. But I tell my colleagues what is going to happen when they do 
these tests of these evidence kits, we are going to find a hit.
  We just had one in Yonkers, New York where, by happenstance, there 
was an evidence test done by a locality with money in their local 
budget, and it was a hit against someone in New York State's prison. If 
my colleagues think this is only a problem in New York City, I can tell 
my colleagues rapists are recidivists. They rape again and again and 
again, and they cross State lines to do it.
  One of the benefits of the Scott amendment, it would load the data 
about the DNA onto the NCIC computers so to allow someone in Texas who 
is investigating a rape to test against convicted offender samples in 
Dallas and also convicted offender samples in Delaware.
  What his amendment would allow also, and perhaps even more 
importantly, is to test some of the evidence that has been gathered at 
crime scenes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an academic issue to a woman who has been 
raped 4 years ago and 6 months. Because for her, in 6 months, in the 
State of New York, the statute of limitations will lapse, and she is 
going to lose the chance.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment to fund DNA 
testing on some of this evidence, something that is not funded in the 
bill presently.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) to increase funding for crime prevention programs.
  This amendment we are addressing now, as my colleagues know, takes 
$10 million from the Truth in Sentencing Fund and applies it to the 
COPS program for DNA testing. Our colleagues, particularly the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who was a law enforcement 
veteran, have spoken eloquently about this amendment.
  I would like to talk about the previous amendment of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in conjunction with this and commend him for 
his leadership on both of them.
  The Scott amendment that was already addressed by this House would 
provide $121 million for crime prevention programs to assist young 
Americans to stay out of trouble and become responsible adults. This 
investment would provide $60.8 million to Boys and Girls Clubs of 
America and the same amount, $60.8 million, to the national Drug Courts 
program to continue their excellent programs. Those courts have made a 
tremendous difference.
  For the last 13 years, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America have 
worked with at-risk youth living in or near America's public housing 
and now have more than 300 affiliate clubs. These clubs provide a safe 
haven, constructive programs, and have proven positive results. An 
independent analysis

[[Page H5015]]

by Columbia University demonstrated that these clubs had a significant 
impact on juvenile criminal activity, which dropped 13 percent, on drug 
activity which dropped 22 percent, and on the presence of crack cocaine 
which dropped 25 percent.
  The 400 Drug Courts throughout America prevent crime effectively. 
These locally driven Drug Courts employ experienced criminal justice 
professionals and substance abuse counselors to work individually with 
Drug Court enrollees. In 1998, Columbia University's independent 
analysis demonstrated that Drug Courts reduced drug use and criminal 
behavior substantially. In addition to directly benefiting our youth, 
the Drug Court system's annual costs are less than $2,500 per person, 
significantly less than the $20,000 to $50,000 annual cost to 
incarcerate drug-using offenders.
  To fund these investments, the Scott amendment provides responsible 
offsets. Specifically, this one taps half the funds from the Truth in 
Sentencing program and leaves adequate Truth in Sentencing funds. In 
1999, only 30 States were even eligible for these funds. Furthermore, 
Truth in Sentencing funding is available for only one use, prison 
construction. This amendment provides an opportunity to shift our 
juvenile justice policy from incarceration to a policy of prevention, 
assistance, and rehabilitation. Before we build more prisons, we should 
invest in youth. We get more value for the dollar spent. For the same 
amount of money invested in prisons, we do not go very far, and we do 
not prevent very much crime. For the same amount of money invested in 
youth, we have very, very positive results.
  In addition to benefiting our youth, this amendment benefits States 
with added flexibility. It addresses the problem in current law that 
limits TIS funding to prison construction only. It eases this 
restriction by enabling States to invest in proven prevention programs. 
For example, the State of Virginia, the Truth in Sentencing State, has 
excess prison capacity and is currently trying to lease 3,200 prison 
beds to other States. We should not penalize Virginia or other States 
that do not want more prevention. States with excess prison capacity 
should be allowed to invest in proven crime prevention programs. We 
should support State and local decision-making on this issue.
  At a time today especially very significantly, Mr. Chairman, when we 
are all engrossed in watching the actions in Texas related to the death 
penalty case and whether Gary Graham will be executed tonight, the need 
for us to have more funding for DNA testing is even more important.
  So this amendment that is before the House right now is a very 
important one. I urge my colleagues to support it and support the 
amendment that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has called for a 
vote on, the previous amendment heard by the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows: 
       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 27, line 4, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $8,000,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this 
amendment, but I do want to speak to it and, as well, another issue 
that is extremely important. This is an important issue, and it has to 
do with providing monies to fund the Violence Against Women grants, 
additional monies.

                              {time}  2100

  The reason that this amendment was offered is because this program is 
in great need to fund such programs like STOP programs, Services 
Training Officers/Prosecutors. So I would have offered this amendment 
so we could continue the civil legal assistance programs to address 
domestic violence in programs like Safe Start that provide direct 
intervention and treatment to youth who are victims or even 
perpetrators of violent crimes.
  The dynamics of domestic violence are all encompassing and usually 
start as emotional abuse that evolves into physical abuse that can 
result in serious injury or death on not only women but also children. 
In the Committee on the Judiciary we are now reauthorizing the Violence 
Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women grants also fund victims 
of child abuse programs and training programs that serve the young 
victims of domestic violence that either experience or witness 
violence.
  It is alarming to note that, according to the National Coalition of 
Domestic Violence, between 50 and 75 percent of men who abuse their 
female partners also abuse their children. Moreover, at least 3.3 to 10 
million American children annually witness assaults by one parent 
against another. Consequently, the children of domestic violence are at 
a high risk of anxiety and depression and often experience delayed 
learning skills.
  Domestic violence affects women of all cultures, races, occupations, 
and income levels. Ninety-two percent of reported domestic violence 
incidents involve violence against females. Although domestic violence 
affects women across all racial and economic lines, a high percentage 
of these victims are women of color. African American women account for 
16 percent of the women who have been physically abused by a husband or 
a partner in the last 5 years. African American women were victims in 
more than 53 percent of the violent deaths that occurred in 1997.
  This amendment would have provided vital services that provide much-
needed civil and legal assistance to the victims of domestic violence. 
This is an important issue in my State. In Texas, there were 75,725 
incidents of family violence in 1998, an estimated 824,790 women were 
physically abused in Texas in 1998. Of all of the women killed in 1997, 
35 percent were murdered by their intimate male partners. In 1998, 110 
women were murdered by their partners.
  An example of the importance of this legislation is the impact that 
the Violence Against Women Act grants have had on services in local 
communities. In Houston we have the Houston Area Women's Center, which 
operates a domestic violence hot line, a shelter for battered women and 
counseling for violent survivors. The center provides all of its 
services for free.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the ranking 
member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I know that the 
gentleman has worked on this issue dealing with violence against women, 
and I would hope that as we move this bill through conference that we 
can all look for opportunities to ensure that these efforts for funding 
for these special programs are funded at at least the maximum amount 
that will get the most amount of services throughout this Nation.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentlewoman that this 
is an issue of great concern to all of us on this side, and certainly 
to a lot of Members in the House; and it is our intent, as we go 
through the conference procedure, to see to it that special care is 
taken in paying special attention to these issues so that these 
programs can be funded at the proper level.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentleman very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in a moment I will be asking 
to withdraw the amendment, but before I do, I would also like to 
acknowledge an amendment that I had intended to offer, and I will put 
the statement regarding that amendment in the Record.
  It is unfortunate that this amendment was not allowed to be brought 
to the floor because of the funding question. Again, we know that 
points of order can be waived, but we must surely realize that we are 
doing a disservice

[[Page H5016]]

to many of these issues because points of order are being offered 
against crucial issues that we are facing.
  I am particularly facing such an issue in Texas, with the need for 
increased border patrol presence along 8,000 miles of international 
land and water boundaries through the areas of Arizona and Texas. We 
have already found immigrants buried in the border areas because of the 
tragedy of the encounters at the border.
  We know our border patrol agents are doing the very best job that 
they can, but I had offered legislation to increase the amount of 
border patrol agents in the Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act 
of 1999. I would have wanted to restore the $24 million that would have 
increased their salaries as well as their training.
  I look forward to working with my Senator, Senator Hutchison, to do 
this on the Senate side because it is a very important issue. I will 
put my statement in the Record, but I am disappointed that we were not 
able to positively respond to the needs of these border patrol agents. 
My commitment to them is that we will continue to work with them to 
encourage this funding to occur during this time frame.
  Mr. Chairman, I take the floor of the House today to address an issue 
that I have been interested in since I have become Ranking Member of 
the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. Early in the 106th Congress 
I sponsored a bill, along with Congressman Reyes, H.R. 1881 the 
``Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act of 1999.''
  This legislation provided incentives and support for recruiting and 
retaining Border Patrol agents. This legislation increased the 
compensation for Border Patrol agents and allowed the Border Patrol 
agency to recruit its own agents without relying on personnel offices 
of the Department of Justice or INS.
  The ``Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Act'' moved 
Border Patrol agents with one year's agency experience from the federal 
government's GS-9 pay level (approximately $34,000 annually) to GS-11 
(approximately $41,000 annually) next year.
  However, this year Mr. Chairman, $24 million is missing to give these 
Border Patrol men and women upgrades. The INS included a pay reform 
proposal for Border Patrol Agents and Immigration Inspectors as a part 
of its 2001 budget. This proposal was to upgrade the salaries of Border 
Patrol Agents from GS-9 to GS-11. Additionally, funds ($50 million) to 
support the upgrades were included in the 2001 budget. The Border 
Patrol upgrades cost $24 million. My amendment will restore the $24 
million back into the budget, specifically the Border and Enforcement 
Affairs Account.
  The subcommittee report indicating the recommended level does not 
assume the proposed increase in the journeyman level for Border Patrol 
Agents and Immigration Inspectors.
  We are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. The men and women 
of the United States Border Patrol put their lives on the line every 
day of their lives. The present force of 8,000 members is responsible 
for protecting more than 8,000 miles of international land and water 
boundaries, and work in the deserts of Arizona and Texas.
  These proposals must be enacted and funds provided, if INS is to 
retain the current workforce and continue hiring more Border Patrol 
Agents.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment 
offered to increase funding to the Violence Against Women Act grants.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       Weed and Seed Program Fund

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

                  Community Oriented Policing Services

       For activities authorized by title I of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 
     (``the 1994 Act'') (including administrative costs), 
     $595,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $384,500,000 is for Public Safety and Community Policing 
     Grants pursuant to title I of the 1994 Act, including up to 
     $180,000,000 to be used to combat violence in schools; and of 
     which $210,500,000 is for innovative community policing 
     programs, of which $45,675,000 shall be used for policing 
     initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and 
     trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug ``hot 
     spots'', $5,000,000 shall be used to combat violence in 
     schools, $130,000,000 shall be used for grants, as authorized 
     by section 102(e) of the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     of 1998, and section 4(b) of the National Child Protection 
     Act of 1993, as amended, and $29,825,000 shall be expended 
     for program management and administration: Provided, That of 
     the unobligated balances available in this program, 
     $150,000,000 shall be used for innovative policing programs, 
     of which $25,000,000 shall be used for the Matching Grant 
     Program for Law Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to section 
     2501 of part Y of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''), as amended, $100,000,000 
     shall be used for a law enforcement technology program, 
     $15,000,000 shall be used for Police Corps education, 
     training, and service as set forth in sections 200101-200113 
     of the 1994 Act, and $10,000,000 shall be used to combat 
     violence in schools.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
       Page 32, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 2, before the comma, insert the following: 
     ``, $150,000,000 shall be for the State and Local Gun 
     Prosecutors program, for discretionary grants to State, 
     local, and tribal jurisdictions and prosecutors' offices to 
     hire up to 1,000 prosecutors to work on gun-related cases''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentlewoman to yield for a 
moment. I believe that my amendment is on a line ahead of hers; and I 
would ask, just so we do not go out of order, if she would withdraw.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Which page is the gentleman's amendment on?
  Mr. WEINER. I believe mine is line 11. I am not sure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the Members that both amendments 
are in the same paragraph, and in deference to the senior New Yorker 
that is why the Chair recognized the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I understand. I thank the Chair. I just wanted to make 
sure I was not losing my place, and I apologize, with all due 
deference, to the senior Member.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I certainly accept the apology of my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York; and I am delighted that he is a member of our 
delegation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my deep disappointment 
that this bill does not include the President's request for $150 
million to fund 1,000 State and local prosecutors in high gun violence 
areas. And I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) for their important work on this issue.
  If there was one thing it seemed most Members of this Congress agreed 
on, it was the important role that enforcement of gun laws plays in 
making our

[[Page H5017]]

communities safer. My amendment would provide funding for this purpose.
  Of course, I believe, as does the majority of the American people, 
that tough enforcement, with common sense gun safety measures, go hand 
in hand. We need to punish those who break existing laws, but we also 
need to put in place new preventive measures, like closing the gun show 
loophole and keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals. 
But not only have we failed to pass such common sense measures, we are 
now neglecting to fund critical law enforcement of existing gun laws.
  I am delighted to see that this bill funds the hiring of additional 
Federal prosecutors for gun crimes, and I commend the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for that. But 
without community-based initiatives, without State and local 
prosecutors able to attack this problem on a smaller more focused 
scale, we are not doing nearly enough.
  It is absolutely critical that we focus more funding on the 
prosecution of gun crimes if we are going to wage a strong fight 
against gun violence in this country. So I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the Lowey, McCarthy, DeLauro, Stabenow amendment to boost our 
investment in the safety of our communities and our children.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. ROGERS. I reserve the point of order.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) and myself have introduced.
  This is a very, very important amendment; and as my colleagues will 
speak tonight, this speaks to something we should all agree on. 
Regardless of which side Members of the House are on as it relates to 
other issues relating to gun safety, we all agree that strong 
enforcement of gun laws is absolutely critical to protect our children 
and our families. In this vein, I have introduced H.R. 4456, which 
would similarly to this amendment authorize $150 million for local 
prosecutors to focus on gun violence.
  In my district in Michigan I have frequently sat down with my 
sheriffs and prosecutors and police chiefs and others and asked them 
what we can do to support their efforts. And just as they strongly 
support community policing and what has been done by adding more 
officers in our neighborhoods and communities across the United States, 
they have been saying loudly that they need additional resources to 
focus on local prosecution and State prosecution of our gun laws.
  We understand that there is a serious issue here. Those that are 
violating our gun laws need to be prosecuted quickly, and our 
communities are telling us they need more resources to do that. Let us 
join together this evening, let us show this evening that regardless of 
the side that an individual is on on other measures relating to gun 
safety, we all can come together around this amendment and understand 
that with additional resources to our States and our local communities 
that we can reduce gun violence, we can prosecute those who are 
committing crimes with guns, and we can make our streets safer for our 
children.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me; 
and, Mr. Chairman, I do continue to reserve the point of order, but let 
me say this about the substance of the amendment.
  This program is neither authorized or even well defined. No one knows 
what we are talking about here. What is a high gun violence area? There 
has to be some definitions so we can administer a law when it is 
passed. No one knows what that means. Does it mean three guns per 
square mile or 5,000 guns per square mile?
  I am just tempted to think that this is not thought out very well. In 
fact, I question whether the $150 million requested for so-called gun 
prosecutors could even be awarded in fiscal 2001. In fiscal 1999 and in 
fiscal year 2000 we appropriated a total of $15 million for the 
Community Prosecutors program; and through April of this year, 
Department of Justice has yet to award all of its 1999 funding, much 
less the 2000 year funding. And they tell us that only about 140 
communities will apply for funding in fiscal year 2000. Well, if only 
140 communities are interested in this program, and they have not spent 
1999 monies, why do we need more money in fiscal 2001?
  In fact, I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the block grant 
programs which the Administration proposed to eliminate, that goes to 
State and local communities for law enforcement, a total of $523 
million, is in this bill that could be used for that purpose if they 
want to. There is plenty of money here sloshing over the sides for 
local law enforcement to use for these purposes. We do not need another 
program, especially one that is unauthorized and, two, that cannot be 
defined.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before we hear from my other colleagues, I 
would just like to respond to our distinguished chairman that I am 
delighted to know that there is some money in the budget; but this 
President has made a very, very forceful commitment to go after these 
criminals and, as I understand it, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle share that commitment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield to 
me.
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman 
that this President zeroed out the $523 million that we provided, the 
Congress provided, for local law enforcement block grants. He said zip. 
Zero. It is gone.

                              {time}  2115

  Now, if my colleagues want to talk about who is committed to wiping 
out gun violence, let us talk about the fact that the Congress has 
funded, as I said before, $15 million as long ago as 2 years ago and 
they have yet to spend it. The Administration has yet to make those 
grants. They have got money laying there. They cannot even give the 
money out they have got laying there. On top of that, we are piling 
more money on this year in this bill and they cannot spend it. They 
cannot or they will not. I do not know what the case is.
  But the point I wanted to make is, they do not need any more money. 
They have got plenty laying down there they will not give out to these 
communities to prosecute gun violence.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-McCarthy-DeLauro-
Stabenow amendment. We are hearing constantly that we are not doing 
enough to certainly enforce the laws that are on the books. I think 
that what we have been hearing constantly, even from their side of the 
aisle and actually from everywhere, is that we are not doing it.
  So what I am saying is that taking this amendment and taking the 
money and putting it into local. And as far as saying we do not have 
any statistics, I can tell my colleagues, we can probably talk to any 
mayor or any local community and they can tell us where they need the 
help the most as far as local prosecutors go.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make was that there is 
$523 million in this bill for local law enforcement block grants that 
goes to local police forces, that goes to local sheriffs, that goes to 
community police forces, that they can use for whatever purpose they 
want. Prosecute gun violence. The money is there.
  Why do they need more money?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the problem is right there when we talk about the block grants. I know 
my local police, certainly on the block

[[Page H5018]]

grants, I know what they use it for. They are certainly using it for 
the community policing and they have done a tremendous job as far as 
working into the community. They also have set up different funds as 
far as domestic violence and everything else.
  What I am saying is we should be taking this money and target it just 
exactly, not a block grant, but target it exactly for prosecution of 
gun violence.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
the money can be done that way. I mean, the monies are available for 
whatever they want to use it for. Let them target it as they see fit, 
locally. If they think there is a gun problem in their community, use 
the money for that purpose.
  I would point out also, there is the Local Law Enforcement Block 
Grant program, $523 million; and, also, there is the COPS program, 
another $500-something million for hiring cops for whatever purpose 
they wanted.
  On top of that, there is zillions of dollars for Violence Against 
Women Act, there is Juvenile Justice block grants, there are block 
grants and grants that are not spent, including the money I mentioned, 
the $15 million a year, for community prosecutors for the last 2 years, 
all of which has not yet been spent.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again I 
will say to the chairman, the monies that we have given to our local 
communities, it has been wonderful, but a lot of times I know my local 
communities are making choices of where to put the money.
  What I am saying is certainly all of our larger cities, especially, 
could use these prosecutors so they can go only strictly after the guns 
and still have the monies, because we know there is never enough money 
for anything, and have those community programs still on base.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to observe that the grants under the 
bill have to pass through the States to get to the localities.
  The great success of the COPS program is that it takes police 
departments, even the smallest police departments, for example, and 
targets the assistance directly to them.
  What the amendment of the gentlewoman would do would allow small 
localities, and very often the States cherry-pick these things, that is 
what is going to happen with the DNA funding.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the local law enforcement block grants go 
through no State government. They go directly from here to their local 
police force, to their local sheriff, to their community police force. 
There is nobody in between. They can use it as they see fit in their 
application for the grant.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
obviously, it is always good to have a debate like this. I know that 
monies are short. I know that, through my community especially, even 
though they are going for the grants, because we help them write the 
grants to get the monies for the local communities, I am saying that we 
can always do a better job.
  I know the incidence of gangs on Long Island is increasing 
constantly; and I know if we had more prosecutors, we could work with 
the local communities and actually get these young people off the 
streets because they have possession of guns.
  With that being said, I think that we should be doing more and more, 
as much as we can do, and get tough on gun crime. This is one part of 
what a lot of us believe in on enforcing the laws that are out there. 
And with that, we do need this money.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-McCarthy-Stabenow-
DeLauro amendment and the strongest possible enforcement of our gun 
laws.
  For more than a year, the Republican leadership and the gun lobby 
have delayed and they have denied attempts to strengthen our laws to 
keep guns out of the hands of kids and criminals. All the while they 
claim we are doing nothing to enforce existing laws.
  Their mantra on the enforcement issue is a smoke screen, pure and 
simple. Their strategy: if they twist the truth, they confuse the 
issue.
  This issue is a question of balance. We all agree no law is worth 
being on the books if it is not enforced effectively. That is why we 
need to strengthen the law and strengthen enforcement. We have asked 
for simple enhancements in our gun safety laws. Close the gun show 
loophole, put child safety locks on guns, and ban the importation of 
high-capacity ammunition clips.
  To complete the balance, we must also help the men and women of law 
enforcement do their job. Today we have the opportunity to do that by 
funding the President's request for $150 million to fund a thousand 
State and local prosecutors in high gun violence areas.
  But once again, the Republican leadership and the gun lobby oppose 
both sides of the balance, both stronger laws and stronger enforcement. 
That is a lethal combination for our children and for our police on our 
streets.
  The gun lobby has spent millions telling Americans that we do not 
need any new gun safety laws when we do not enforce the laws already on 
the books. At the same time, they have also fought enforcement tooth 
and nail. For years they attacked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms, the lead agency for enforcement of Federal gun laws.
  As a result of the gun lobby's attack against the ATF, it has not had 
enough resources to effectively do what they are charged to do, which 
is to enforce our gun laws.
  But suddenly, over the past year, the gun lobby changed their tune. 
Now they are all for enforcing the laws they so vehemently opposed for 
decades. The hypocrisy should be obvious.
  The reality is that our existing gun laws are being enforced. This 
administration's strategy of strengthening our laws and empowering law 
enforcement has worked. Since 1992, violent crime has dropped 20 
percent and violent crimes committed by guns fell by more than 35 
percent.
  Investment in State and local law enforcement is up nearly 300 
percent since 1993, allowing Federal, State and local law enforcement 
to create strategic alliances to combat gun crimes. Federal 
prosecutions of firearms laws have risen 16 percent since 1992.
  The results are clear. Tougher laws, stronger enforcement, safer 
streets.
  This amendment would provide a much needed increase in our support 
for gun crime prosecutors. Now is the time to stop talking about 
enforcement and start doing something about it. We have that 
opportunity here tonight to increase the opportunity of local law 
enforcement to commit themselves to making sure that our gun laws are 
enforced through support.
  If my colleagues support stronger enforcement and safer streets, then 
they will support this amendment tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my friends from New York and Michigan and Connecticut.
  Last year we had a debate over a very divisive and emotional issue 
about adding a new Federal protection to regulate the sale of guns at 
gun shows. And I remember that night, I think all of us remember that 
night, the very moving and personal and eloquent statement of our 
friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). And I thought 
one of the most disappointing moments of that night, because her 
position did not prevail, was the excuses that were given.
  We were told last year that a new Federal prohibition or regulation 
of

[[Page H5019]]

guns was unnecessary because there were so many State gun laws that 
were effective so we did not need a Federal law. And we were told that 
we did not need a new Federal law closing the gun show loophole because 
what we really needed was more enforcement of those existing State gun 
laws.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a chance tonight to find common ground on 
an issue that is very often divisive, because the amendment that my 
friends are offering offers that common ground. It says to those who 
were in opposition to the position of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy) last year, closing the Federal gun show loophole, they 
say that they want greater reliance on State laws, here it is. Because 
this amendment is about greater enforcement of existing State gun laws. 
And they say the problem is not adding new gun control measures, it is 
enforcing existing gun control measures.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, here it is. Because what this amendment does is 
to enforce more expeditiously and more aggressively existing gun 
control measures.
  I believe that this vote tonight is a test of the true position of 
those who oppose the position of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy) last year. If it is really true that their objection to 
closing the gun show loophole was that State law should take priority, 
if it is really true that their opposition was based on the fact that 
more enforcement of existing laws is the right way to go, Mr. Chairman, 
here is the chance to prove it. Because what this amendment does is to 
say, we will put more fire power, for prosecutorial muscle, at the 
State and local level, not into new laws, not into new Federal laws, 
but into the enforcement of existing State and local gun laws.
  Now, if this amendment is not successful tonight, and I hope that it 
is successful tonight, I would ask, what is it, then, that those who 
oppose our position really want? Is it that they just want a different 
kind of public protection for gun safety or that they do not really 
want public protection for gun safety at all?
  I thank my friends for offering this amendment because it will be a 
litmus test of where people really stand on this very pressing issue of 
suppressing gun violence in our country.
  I urge support of the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000 
(H.Rept. 106-686). This amendment would provide new budget authority in 
excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and 
is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

                              {time}  2130

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of 
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary 
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of 
such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York would increase 
the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, 
the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Weiner:
       Beginning on page 32, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 33, line 14, and insert the following:

     For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994 
     Act''), $1,335,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Attorney General may transfer any of these 
     funds, and balances for programs funded under this heading in 
     fiscal year 2000, to the ``State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance'' account, to be available for the purposes stated 
     under this heading: Provided further, That administrative 
     expenses associated with such transferred amounts may be 
     transferred to the ``Justice Assistance'' account. Of the 
     amounts provided:
       (1) for Public Safety and Community Policing Grants 
     pursuant to title I of the 1994 Act, $650,000,000 as follows: 
     not to exceed $36,000,000 for program management and 
     administration; $20,000,000 for programs to combat violence 
     in schools; $25,000,000 for the matching grant program for 
     Law Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to section 2501 of part 
     Y of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 
     as amended; $17,000,000 for program support for the Court 
     Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
     Columbia; $45,000,000 to improve tribal law enforcement 
     including equipment and training; $20,000,000 for National 
     Police Officer Scholarships; and $30,000,000 for Police Corps 
     education, training, and service under sections 200101-200113 
     of the 1994 Act;
       (2) for crime-fighting technology, $350,000,000 as follows: 
     $70,000,000 for grants to upgrade criminal records, as 
     authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 
     1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601; $15,000,000 for State and local 
     forensic labs to reduce their convicted offender DNA sample 
     backlog; $35,000,000 for State, Tribal and local DNA 
     laboratories as authorized by section 1001(a)(22) of the 1968 
     Act, as well as improvements to State, Tribal and local 
     forensic laboratory general forensic science capabilities; 
     $10,000,000 for the National Institute of Justice Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers; $5,000,000 
     for DNA technology research and development; $10,000,000 for 
     research, technical assistance, evaluation, grants, and other 
     expenses to utilize and improve crime-solving, data sharing, 
     and crime-forecasting technologies; $6,000,000 to establish 
     regional forensic computer labs; and $199,000,000 for 
     discretionary grants, including planning grants, to States 
     under section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601), of which up to $99,000,000 is for 
     grants to law enforcement agencies, and of which not more 
     than 23 percent may be used for salaries, administrative 
     expenses, technical assistance, training, and evaluation;
       (3) for a Community Prosecution Program, $200,000,000, of 
     which $150,000,000 shall be for grants to States and units of 
     local government to address gun violence ``hot spots'';
       (4) for grants, training, technical assistance, and other 
     expenses to support community crime prevention efforts, 
     $135,000,000 as follows: $35,000,000 for a youth and school 
     safety program; $5,000,000 for citizens academies and One 
     America race dialogues; $35,000,000 for an offender re-entry 
     program; $25,000,000 for a Building Blocks Program, including 
     $10,000,000 for the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety 
     Initiative; $20,000,000 for police integrity and hate crimes 
     training; $5,000,000 for police recruitment; and $10,000,000 
     for police gun destruction grants (Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted by section 1000(a)(1) of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-
     113)).

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to commend the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) for their acknowledgment in this bill of the success of 
the COPS program and the allocation of $595 million for that program 
similar to last year's levels. My amendment brings the funding levels 
up to the budget request of the President to fully fund the COPS 
program.
  First, I think that it is an important threshold that we have reached 
in this body that both sides of the aisle now embrace the COPS program, 
a program that once was extraordinarily controversial; and there are 
still Members who are grudging in their support of this program. It is 
a program that has funded police officers at the local level throughout 
this country, police departments big and small. It has been an 
unqualified success. But this amount still underfunds one of our most 
important law enforcement programs.
  I am curious why, Mr. Chairman, the majority has decided to slash by 
more than half the amount requested by the President for COPS. Late 
last year the Justice Department released statistics showing that 
serious crime declined for the seventh year in a row. Today the crime 
rate is at a 26-year low, the murder rate is at a 31-year low. The 
rising tide of crime in the 1980s has clearly turned, and the COPS 
program deserves at least some of the credit.
  Five years into the life of the COPS program, over 100,000 officers 
have been funded. Over 60,000 new officers are on the streets today. 
Within the next 3 years when the hiring, training and deploying cycle 
which has been slowed,

[[Page H5020]]

frankly, by the economy that all local police departments must go 
through is completed, over 100,000 officers will be patrolling our 
streets. But the bill we are considering today does not contain the 
funds necessary to continue this success. The bill eliminates funding 
for community prosecutors, cuts funding for critical technology like 
DNA analysis as we spoke about earlier and backlog reduction that would 
reduce crime and provides no increase for funds to expand community-
based crime prevention.
  The chairman of the subcommittee earlier characterized this bill as 
sloshing with money. That is exactly how it is being allocated, in 
giant splashes as we throw large sums of money at States; and we hope 
and we pray and we wish and we grimace and we say maybe some of it will 
go to DNA testing, maybe some of it will go to community courts.
  This amendment makes sure that the COPS program is fully funded. I 
would hope that the chairman would withdraw his point of order. The 
amendment I am offering today along with the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Stabenow) would fully fund the President's request for COPS. Our 
amendment provides funds to add up to 7,000 additional officers and 
includes $350 million for crime fighting technology as well as $200 
million for community prosecutors. We set some of these targets so that 
local government can better address gun violence hot spots.
  Today's bill includes no increase in funds to expand community-based 
crime prevention. Our amendment changes this. We put $135 million in 
for prevention activities like school safety programs, police integrity 
and hate crimes training and gun destruction grants. Full funding of 
these programs requested by the President is critical if the Nation is 
going to continue to see drops in crime. This administration has seen 
perhaps the most dramatic reductions in crime, the most dramatic 
increase in prosecutions at all levels of government of any 
administration in recent memory.
  I would note, Mr. Chairman, that one of the majority's objections to 
fully funding COPS is that language to authorize these programs has not 
been introduced. That is not true. The gentlewoman from Michigan and I 
introduced H.R. 3144, a bill that would authorize all of the programs 
funded in our amendment. H.R. 3144 has 166 cosponsors. We look forward 
to its consideration in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I approached the 
Committee on Rules and asked that this be made in order. It is subject 
to a point of order. I would ask the chairman not to insist upon that 
point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition, of course, to the amendment; and I 
will insist upon the point of order. But before doing so, let me 
correct a couple of pieces of information.
  Like all other State and local law enforcement grant programs, COPS 
in this bill is funded at the same level as the fiscal year 2000 bill 
was. Our bill provides $745 million, of which $595 million is direct 
appropriations, the same level as fiscal year 2000, and $150 million is 
unobligated balances. That level continues to fund the existing COPS 
programs, including $385 million for hiring cops and $360 million for 
continuation of the successful nonhiring technology and crime 
prevention programs. Our hiring number is within $30 million of the 
Administration's request after funding for all of the unauthorized and 
relaxed hiring provisions are withdrawn.
  We continue successful nonhiring programs such as bulletproof vests, 
COPS technologies and Crime Identification Technology Act grants, that 
is CITA, that is for DNA testing and the like, police courts and the 
methamphetamine cleanup program which is so important to so many 
Members of this body.
  Funding is not included, however, for new unauthorized and unproven 
programs, but COPS is funded at the same level as this year.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if 
changing existing law.''
  This amendment gives affirmative direction. In effect, it imposes 
additional duties, and it modifies existing powers and duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to speak on the point of 
order and ask that this very, very important program be allowed to 
proceed. I would ask the chairman to withdraw. I appreciate the 
comments that he has made, but he is speaking on a baseline that 
basically cut the program in half last year, so to say we are funding 
it at the same level does not give us what our communities need.
  In Michigan we have seen over 3,400 police officers added to our 
communities. It has dramatically reduced crime. It is critical for the 
communities and the families in Michigan that we fully fund community 
policing with all of the technology, all of the other efforts to make 
sure that this moves forward at its complete and fully funded level. I 
would ask the chairman to withdraw that in keeping with the strong 
support for fully funding of what is the most important crime-fighting 
effort we have seen in this country in many, many years, which is the 
community policing program.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. Let the record show that this is one of President Clinton's 
first and most successful initiatives. Police chiefs, sheriffs, and 
criminal justice experts across the country join me today in my strong 
support of the COPS program. This program provides grants to local 
police departments to increase the number of officers patrolling our 
neighborhood streets. It has directly contributed to reducing the 
Nation's crime rate to a 26-year low. The COPS program is a prime 
example of a successful partnership between the Federal Government and 
police forces at the local level.
  For example, in Florida's third district, the Jacksonville Sheriff's 
Department has received a total of $13 million in COPS grants which has 
led to more officers on the beat and less crime. It is no coincidence 
that there has been a decrease in crime across the State of Florida. At 
the same time there has been an increase in the number of local police 
officers. This is now the eighth consecutive year that the crime rate 
has dropped and the COPS program has served police departments by 
providing them with the necessary funds, technical assistance and 
support the local departments need to keep our Nation's communities 
safe. COPS has put more police in our Nation's schools at a time when 
school violence has escalated.
  It is clear where the priorities of the majority party lie. Instead 
of focusing on enforcement and crime prevention, the funding in this 
bill goes toward expanding juvenile detention centers. Instead of 
increasing funding for drug rehabilitation programs, they are 
appropriating money to lock up more of our Nation's citizens by funding 
items like State prison grants and expanded correctional facilities by 
more than nine times the amount requested by the President.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the COPS grants and to vote no 
on overall passage of this unjust bill. Someone seems to have missed 
the important point. More prevention, not more prisons, should be the 
message that Congress sends to our Nation, especially to our children. 
The secret is to fight crime before it happens and not afterwards. One 
way to do this is with community policing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on the point of order. I would like to 
be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to address the body?
  Ms. LEE. On the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to make an announcement on the 
point of order.
  Ms. LEE. I would like to be heard on the point of order, Mr. 
Chairman.

[[Page H5021]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weiner-
Stabenow amendment which would provide this badly needed increase in 
funding for the COPS program. The COPS program has been a valuable tool 
to increase peace and safety in communities across the country. Cities 
and communities across the Nation are turning to community policing.
  Mr. ROGERS. Point of order. The gentlewoman must confine her remarks 
to the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained. The gentlewoman should 
confine her remarks to the point of order. She may strike the last word 
after the Chair rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction to a Federal official. The amendment therefore constitutes 
legislation. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Community policing is a strategy that builds on fundamental policing 
practices with an emphasis on crime prevention and lasting solutions to 
problems. It works. It requires new resolve from citizens and new 
thinking from police officers.
  On May 12, 1999, the United States Department of Justice and COPS 
reached an important milestone by funding the 100,000th officer ahead 
of schedule and under budget. But we must not stop here. We must 
maintain our investment in this very worthwhile program. Funding for 
COPS will provide many thousands of additional officers on our Nation's 
streets and will provide safety in our schools.
  COPS grants are also used to invest in the technology needed to solve 
crime and reduce the current backlog. This program is important because 
the funding is used to prevent crime and violence, and it fosters 
better relations between our police officers and the public. In many of 
our urban communities, tensions have mounted between police and 
minority communities. We must do everything we can to reduce these 
tensions. Increasing funding for community policing really will help do 
this. Through the school and value-based partnership initiatives, COPS 
will also reach out to our youth before they become entwined in 
criminal activity. The COPS program is about law enforcement, training, 
support, prevention, and most importantly safer communities.
  For these reasons, we must provide additional funding. I stand in 
strong support of this amendment and encourage my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this worthy program.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Weiner-Stabenow amendment to increase the 
appropriations for Community Oriented Policing Program, COPS. The 
amendment includes funds for law enforcement in Indian country.
  We believe that public safety is important to all of us. We believe 
that public safety is important not only in training and prevention and 
public safety in our schools, it is important that we provide adequate 
funding. As we look across the Nation, across the States, that is one 
of the highest priorities that we have is public funding and public 
safety and funding for law enforcement.
  The Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill provides zero 
funding for Indian country law enforcement initiatives, zero funding 
for tribal courts, zero funding for COPS grants set aside for Indians.
  We have the responsibility for Native American Indian as well, to 
every other individual as well. What we basically do is we provide 
public safety in other areas but when it comes to tribal, we do not 
provide the funding here. This is wrong. We must fund these programs. 
It is important that we recognize Native American Indians who have 
given to this country.
  For this reason, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 487 to honor 
Native Americans. Native Americans have shown their willingness to 
fight and die for our Nation in foreign lands.
  Native Americans honor the American flag at every pow wow and a lot 
of us have attended those. It is shameful that the Republican 
leadership zeroed out funding for Native American law enforcement in 
this bill.
  This funding is critical in light of the information from the Justice 
Department and the confirmation that while national crime continues to 
drop, crime rates continue to rise and continue to rise in Native 
American sovereign country.
  Violence against women, juveniles and gang crime and child abuse 
remains a serious problem. It does not matter where it is at, it is a 
problem that exists, and we must provide public safety.
  We need to support funding for Native American laws and enforcement. 
It is the right thing to do, and this bill would provide the funding in 
that area. It is the just and right thing to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       Juvenile Justice Programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, 
     $267,597,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That these funds shall be available for obligation and 
     expenditure upon enactment of reauthorization legislation for 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (title XIII of H.R. 1501 or comparable legislation).
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, $11,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, for developing, testing, and demonstrating programs 
     designed to reduce drug use among juveniles.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $8,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 214B of the Act.


                    Public Safety Officers Benefits

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

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``general provisions--
     department of justice'', strike section 103.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today strikes 
section 103 from title 1 of the general provisions of the Department of 
Justice. In effect, this amendment strikes the language in the bill 
which prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services for 
women in Federal prison.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike other American women, who are denied Federal 
coverage of abortion services, most women in prison are indigent, they 
have no access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low 
wages in prison jobs.
  They are also incarcerated in prisons at great distance from their 
customary support system of family and friends. As a result, inmates in 
the Federal prison system are completely dependent on the Bureau of 
Prisons for all of their needs, including food, shelter, clothing and 
all of the aspects of their medical care.
  These women are not able to work at jobs that would enable them to 
pay for

[[Page H5022]]

medical services, including abortion services. The overwhelming 
majority of women in Federal prisons work on a general pay scale and 
earn from 12 cents to 40 cents an hour or roughly $5 to $16 per week.
  The average costs of an early, outpatient abortion ranges from $200 
to $400. Abortions after the 13th week of pregnancy cost $400 to $700. 
Even if a woman in the Federal prison system earned the maximum wage on 
the general pay scale and worked 40 hours a week, which many prisoners 
do not, she would earn enough in 12 weeks to pay for an abortion in the 
first trimester if she so chose. After that, the costs of an abortion 
rises dramatically, and the woman is caught in a vicious cycle. Even if 
she saved her entire prison income, every single penny, she could never 
afford an abortion.
  If Congress denies women in Federal prison coverage of abortion 
services, it is effectively shutting down the only avenue these women 
have for their constitutional right to pursue an abortion.
  Let me remind my colleagues that it is still legal in this country. 
Let me also remind my colleagues that for the last 27 years, women in 
America have had a constitutional right to choose an abortion, which 
does not disappear when a woman walks through the prison doors.
  The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on this very point. 
Nonetheless, the consequence of this funding ban is that inmates who 
have no independent financial means are foreclosed from the choice of 
an abortion in violation of their rights under the 14th amendment of 
the Constitution.
  With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend 
on for their health services, many pregnant prisoners are, in fact, 
coerced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The antichoice movement 
in Congress decries coverage for abortion services to women in the 
military, women who work for the government, poor women and women 
ensured by the Federal Employees Health Plan.
  I vehemently disagree with all of these restrictions. I think they 
are wrong and mean-spirited. But when Congress denies abortions for 
women who are incarcerated, the Congress is in effect denying women 
their fundamental right to choose, and that is wrong.
  Let me spend a moment to talk about the kind of women in the Federal 
prison system. Many are victims of physical and sexual abuse, that is 
how they got pregnant in the first place, and, unfortunately, this 
cycle can continue once they are incarcerated by abuse by correctional 
staff as reported in a recently released GAO report. Two-thirds of the 
women are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses.
  Many of them are HIV-infected or have full-blown AIDS, and Congress 
thinks I guess that it is in the best interests of the country to force 
these women to have children.
  This debate is not about the parenting abilities of women in prison. 
It is about forcing some women to have a delayed abortion at a greater 
risk to their health. It is about forcing some women against their will 
to bear a child in prison when that child will be taken from her at 
birth or shortly thereafter.
  In the latter case, it is unfair and cruel to force a woman who does 
not have the emotional will to go through her pregnancy with limited 
prenatal care, isolated from her family and friends, and knowing that 
the child will be taken from her at birth.
  What will happen to these children, these children who are born to 
prisoners? Will they be raised by the relatives who do not care about 
them? Will they be sent to an agency to become a ward of the State? 
What will happen to them?
  I doubt that those opposed to this amendment have any real serious 
answer to this question. In 1993, Congress did the right thing when it 
overturned this barbaric policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the same and support the 
DeGette amendment. Let us stop the rollbacks on a women's reproductive 
system.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is no denying a compelling yet 
somewhat underpublicized trend in America today: Americans in 
increasing numbers are profoundly disturbed over the killing of unborn 
children. 40 million babies have been killed to date, and Americans are 
rejecting in increasing numbers the violence of abortion.
  Americans, especially women, recognize that abortion is indeed 
violence against women. A recent nationwide Los Angeles Times poll, 
conducted just a few days ago in June, confirms that a significant 
majority of both men and women now recognize abortion to be the murder 
of an innocent and defenseless child.
  The LA Times poll found that in an astounding 61 percent--let me say 
that again--61 percent of the women of America say abortion is murder. 
Giving that finding, it is not surprising that the LA Times poll, a 
nationwide poll, found that support for Roe v. Wade, the infamous 
Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand, is declining 
in a big way.
  The headline of the LA Times story that appeared in my newspaper at 
home, the Trenton Times, said support for Roe v. Wade is softening. I 
hope as lawmakers and as politicians we recognize this trend that is 
staring us right in the face.
  In addition, the poll also found that only 43 percent of the 
respondents supported Roe v. Wade, and that compares with 56 percent 
back in 1991. In other words, my colleagues, there has been a 13 
percent drop in support for Roe v. Wade over the last 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the word is getting out: Abortion is violence against 
children, and it hurts women. The inherent value and worth of a baby is 
in no way diminished because the child's mother happens to be 
incarcerated.
  Children, I believe, are precious beyond words. The lives of their 
mothers, likewise, are of infinite value. Forcing taxpayers to 
subsidize the killing of an incarcerated woman's child makes pro-life 
Americans accomplices, complicit in the violence against children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a very strong no on this amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, I think we have got to face the truth, a truth that this poll 
clearly suggests: abortion, whether it be dismemberment or the killing 
of a child by way of injections of salt poisoning which literally burns 
that child to death--we have to look at the methods and the act of 
abortion itself. What does it entail? High powered suction machines, 20 
to 30 times as powerful as a vacuum cleaner, with razor blade tipped 
ends that slice and dismember the legs, the arms, the body, the head, 
and kill the baby in a very, very cruel fashion. That is the reality 
that the DeGette amendment says we ought to pay for.
  I, like many Americans, profoundly reject that. Let me also point out 
that the poll showed as well most Americans do not want their tax money 
being used to subsidize abortions.
  We have had, I say to my colleagues, this amendment before us before. 
It has been soundly rejected. I hope that we will have the wisdom of 
those previous votes. Hopefully we will look at the way the polls are 
going, because Americans are waking up. The megatrend, if you will, is 
in favor of life.
  Let us enfranchise both mother and baby, let us provide protection 
for both. Vote against this amendment, it will lead to more killing of 
more babies.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment and 
want to thank her for her leadership once again this year on this 
issue. This amendment would strike the language banning the use of 
Federal funds for abortion services for women at Federal prisons.
  Through our judicial system, we certainly try to seek appropriate 
responses to illegal actions. Women in prison are being punished for 
the crimes that they committed, whether we agree with the fairness of 
the criminal justice system or not, they are doing their time, that is 
a fact.
  However, we are addressing a different issue today. Today we discuss 
civil liberties and rights which are protected for all in America and 
remain so even when an individual is incarcerated.
  Abortion is a legal option for women in America, whether my 
colleagues agree with it or not. It is a legal option. Since women in 
prison are completely dependent on the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 
all of their health care services, the ban on the use of

[[Page H5023]]

 Federal funds is a cruel policy that traps women by denying them all 
reproductive decision-making.
  The ban is unconstitutional, because freedom of choice is a right 
that has been protected under our Constitution for 25 years. 
Furthermore, the great majority of women who enter our Federal prison 
system are impoverished and are often isolated from family, friends and 
resources.
  We are dealing with very complex histories that often tragically 
include drug abuse, homelessness, physical and sexual abuse. To deny a 
basic reproductive choice would only make matters worse than the crisis 
in essence that the women are already faced with by being in the 
Federal prison system.

                              {time}  2200

  The ban on the use of Federal funds is a deliberate attack by the 
anti-choice movement to ultimately derail all reproductive options for 
all women. As we begin chipping away basic reproductive services for 
women, I ask my colleagues, what is next? The denial of OB-GYN 
examinations and mammograms for women inmates? Who is next?
  Limiting choice for incarcerated women puts other populations at 
great risk. This dangerous slippery slope erodes the right to choose 
little by little. Freedom of choice must be unconditionally kept 
intact. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to protect this 
constitutional right for women in America and vote yes on the DeGette 
amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeGette amendment. 
The DeGette amendment is public funding of abortions. We should never 
forget that abortion is the most violent form of death known to 
mankind. It is death by dismemberment, by decapitation, by horrible 
violence; and it is outrageous that the pro-abortion radicals would 
want to force the American taxpayers to pay for the abortion of Federal 
prisoners.
  Instead of sending a message to Federal prisoners that the answer to 
their problem is to kill the baby, they should be shown to take 
responsibility, to consider what is best for the child they are 
carrying. While these women in prison deserve our sympathy, our 
compassion, paying for an abortion will neither show them that we are 
concerned for their well-being nor will it help them put their lives 
back together.
  By offering care, not abortions, to prisoners and their unborn 
babies, these women will see that problems are not solved by 
eliminating other human beings, and men and women should be taking 
responsibility and consider what is best for the child they conceived.
  The children of prisoners are of no less value than any other 
children. No child should be treated like a throwaway. Being the child 
of an incarcerated woman does not make anyone less human.
  Mr. Chairman, someone said in the debate when we were debating this 
last session, who will speak for these children, and went on to say we 
must speak for these children. Well, if that is true, that we must 
speak for these children, then I guess the supporters of the DeGette 
amendment believe that unborn children of Federal prisoners want to be 
killed by their mothers. In fact, children must desire death so much 
that the American taxpayer should be forced to fund it.
  We should not be punishing the baby for the crimes or sins of their 
mothers. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the death of unborn children 
at the expense of all Americans. I urge a no vote on the DeGette 
amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment to strike 
the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prison. This ban is 
cruel, unnecessary, and unwarranted.
  A woman's sentence to prison should not include the penalty of 
depriving her of her constitutional right to decide for herself whether 
to carry her pregnancy to term. Most women in prison are poor, have 
little or no access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely 
low wages from prison jobs. Inmates in general work up to 40 hours per 
week and earn up to 12 to 40 cents an hour. They are totally dependent 
for the health services they receive on their institutions. Most female 
prisoners are unable to finance their own abortions, should they choose 
them, and, therefore, in effect are denied their constitutional right 
to an abortion if they choose them.
  Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and are 
pregnant before entering prison. In addition, they will almost 
certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we 
add to their anguish by denying them access to reproductive services?
  We ought to keep this debate in perspective. We are not talking about 
big numbers. Statistics show that in 1997, for example, of the 
approximately 8,000 women in Federal prison, 16, one-six, had 
abortions, and there were 75 births. So it is a small number of people 
we are talking about, and we should understand that as we continue this 
debate.
  The ban on abortions does not stop thousands of abortions from taking 
place; rather, it places an unconstitutional burden on a few women in a 
difficult situation.
  I know full well that the authors of this ban would take away the 
right to choose from all American women if they could, but since they 
are prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court and by the popular 
will of the American people who overwhelmingly support freedom of 
choice, they have instead targeted their restrictions on women in 
prison, women in prison who are perhaps the least likely to be able to 
object.
  Let me also comment on some of the statements we have heard in this 
debate so far. We know that some people believe, and obviously the 
authors of this ban, and we heard some of them say so a few minutes 
ago, that abortion, all abortion, is taking of innocent human life, is 
murder. That is a legitimate, defensible point of view; but that is all 
it is, a point of view. It is not a fact.
  There are some people who believe that a person is a full human being 
at conception, that there are some religions that teach that. There are 
other religions that teach that life in effect begins at some later 
stage of pregnancy. Those are religious points of view. They are not 
susceptible to scientific decision.
  For myself, I do not know where life begins. I do know that I could 
not countenance, that I see no difference between a 9-month term baby 
the moment before it is delivered and the moment after it is delivered. 
On the other hand, I see no human value, no sacred spark of light that 
must be protected at all cost in a 10 or 8 or 16 cell blastula, and 
somewhere in between those two stages something changes. Perhaps when 
the fetus develops feelings, I do not know.
  But these are very personal questions, and questions that nobody has 
the right to impose an answer on for someone else. And that is why we 
favor choice. Let each individual woman who has to struggle with that 
pregnancy and with that decision make her own moral decision.
  Nobody has the authority to tell that woman, to impose on that woman, 
their own view of when that fetus, when that blastula, when that 
embryo, when that zygote becomes a human being and force that decision 
on her. None of us has that authority; none of us has that wisdom.
  Some of us have the thought that we should impose our own thoughts or 
religious views on the woman. I do not think we have the right to do 
so, and the Supreme Court has said we do not have the right to do so, 
and that reduces this debate to a debate over whether we should use our 
ability to control some funds to impose on a few unfortunate women in 
prison our opinion as to when the life begins in their uterus and our 
opinion or our fiat that they should be deprived of their 
constitutional right to make that moral and humbling choice for 
themselves. I do not think we ought to do that.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from 
New York for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me ask my friend, is there any point in the 
pregnancy, any point in the 9 months, the

[[Page H5024]]

normal gestational period, at which time the gentleman believes that 
child is sufficiently formed, sufficiently mature, that all the body 
systems are working, as we all know with ultrasound, is there any point 
where the child deserves protection?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, I do. As I said a moment 
or two ago, I do not see a difference between the baby a moment before 
or a moment after delivery at full term. When that dividing line is, I 
do not claim to know. I certainly do not claim to impose my opinion on 
any woman who has to make that decision for herself with respect to her 
own pregnancy. She must make the decision as to the morality and the 
rightness of what she chooses to do, and that is why I favor freedom of 
choice, because I cannot impose my opinion on that question on anyone 
else. I am not even sure of the answer for myself.
  Therefore, this comes basically down to just another way of trying to 
get around a woman's constitutional right to make that choice for 
herself, and to impose some of our opinions, some of the opinions of 
those of us in this Chamber on every individual woman, and that we have 
no right, no moral right, and the Supreme Court has said to us we have 
no constitutional right to do; and that is why this amendment should be 
adopted.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that was offered by 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Actually, as I listened to 
her statement, I thought it was exceedingly well presented in terms of 
the total facets of making sure that women in prison have 
constitutional rights too.
  In 1976, the United States Supreme Court found that deliberate 
indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes an 
unnecessary infliction of pain, a violation of the eighth amendment to 
the Constitution.
  Most women are poor at the time of incarceration, and they do not 
earn any meaningful compensation from prison jobs. This ban closes off 
their access to receive such services and thereby denies them their 
rights under the Constitution.
  There has been a 75 percent increase in the number of women 
incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prison facilities over the last 
decade, twice the increase of men. Most women in prison are young and 
have frequently been unemployed. Many have been victims of physical or 
sexual abuse. Additionally, the rate of HIV and AIDS infection is 
higher for women in prison than the rate of men.
  These women have the greatest need for full access to all health care 
options. Abortion is a legal health care option for women. It has been 
for over 25 years. Because Federal prisoners are totally dependent on 
health care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the ban in 
effect prevents these women from seeking needed reproductive health 
care.
  This ban on Federal funds for women in prison is a direct assault on 
the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
DeGette amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment. 
Quite simply, this amendment offers women in prison, who are solely 
dependent on Federal health services, their constitutional right to 
reproductive services.
  Women in prison have no resources, no means to borrow money, very 
little support from the outside. In fact, 6 percent of incarcerated 
women are pregnant when they enter prison; and we know that women 
become pregnant in prison, from rape or from having a relationship with 
one of the guards.
  This ban to deny abortion coverage is another direct assault on the 
right to reproductive choice. It is time to honor the Supreme Court 
decision of Roe v. Wade by acknowledging it is every woman's right to 
have access to safe, reliable abortion services.
  We must stop the rollback on women's reproductive freedoms, we must 
provide education and resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and we 
must vote on the DeGette amendment and protect all women's rights to 
reproductive choice.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment. I rise in 
support not to make the case. As a matter of fact, the case has been 
adequately made, eloquently made. But I think it is important that we 
note, increasingly are people becoming incarcerated, increasingly are 
females becoming incarcerated in this country; and it would seem to me 
that if we value rights, then the right to health care should not be 
denied any person, no matter where they are.
  So as women are in prison, they, too, should have the right to make 
decisions, to make choices, to make determinations; and I would urge 
that we not deny them the right to make a choice, to decide, to make a 
decision about their own health and the health care that they will 
receive.

                              {time}  2215

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is a legal health care option for women in 
this country and has been for almost 30 years, and this right should be 
no different for Federal prisoners. For that reason, I rise in strong 
support of the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all heard all of the arguments I think, but I 
want to tell my colleagues about an experience that I had when I was in 
the State legislature in Illinois. We wanted to talk about real options 
for mothers in prison, or women who gave birth in prison. All of those 
who are so in favor of taking away the constitutional rights of women 
to have an abortion, to choose an abortion, ought to think about what 
happens when that woman does have the baby.
  I had legislation that would have offered women in prison who were 
nonviolent, short-term offenders, that is their prison sentence was 
less than 7 years, to be in residential settings where they could be 
mothers and could be with their children and could prepare for a life 
after prison to be with their children. That is not at all what 
happens, and that bill did not even get out of committee to be 
considered on the floor, because oh, no, we are going to punish these 
women, and now we are going to punish them to the extent that we are 
going to force them to have that child, but that child is going to be 
immediately ripped away from that mother whether she wants that baby 
now or not, is going to be put into a foster care system which 
throughout the country is known to be inadequate; this child is going 
to begin life at an enormous disadvantage. I would like to see if 
somebody cares about what happens to that child after birth, not just 
from conception to birth, but what happens to that child after that 
child is born.
  So not only are we stripping these women of their constitutional 
right to make a choice, but in many ways, we condemn the outcome of 
that, the child that is born to a life of deprivation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have to begin by doing what is right and 
allowing the constitutional rights of those women to be exercised when 
they are in prison, and to continue to give them reasonable options, if 
they want to carry that baby to term, to be able to have a setting in 
which motherhood and childhood can thrive and survive.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rather not be here this time of the evening 
having to strike the last word to stand up for women who cannot stand 
up for themselves, but since there are those who have chosen to pick on 
the most vulnerable women, women in prison, those of us who are free, 
those of us who have a voice, must take this time to speak for those 
women.
  It is about time that we show some compassion and understanding 
regarding this very personal issue. I think it is time that we talk 
about this issue, at least in ways that we can respect everybody that 
is involved. Why would

[[Page H5025]]

this Congress insist on bearing its weight again on this vulnerable 
population in our Federal prisons?
  Consider the plight of some of these women. Yes, it has been said 
here this evening, for whatever reasons, the numbers of women 
incarcerated is increasing. Those numbers, for whatever reasons, are 
getting higher and higher. Many of them are being convicted on 
conspiracy charges. Many of these women have not been proven to be 
guilty of anything. Many of them are the mates or the spouses of 
others, of men, who are involved in drug trafficking and they get 
caught up in this web through the surveillance techniques and all of 
those things that we have. So they are there. Many of them, yes, are 
HIV infected and some of them happen to be pregnant women, but pregnant 
women who are incarcerated.
  I do not believe that I have the right to force my will on this woman 
regarding the choice to bring a child into the world. I believe that 
woman, like her peers outside of the criminal justice system should 
have a choice, a say regarding the decision to carry to term the child.
  We talk about how much we love these children, but what happens to 
them? What happens to these children that are born unwanted? What 
happens to these children that sometimes are born HIV infected to drug-
infected women? We do not know what happens to them, and I say to my 
colleagues, I believe that there are many who do not care what happens 
to them. They go out somewhere, maybe if they are lucky, they get into 
foster care. These are children that are doomed to poverty, doomed to 
the inability to have a decent life.
  So, that is not our choice, it is the choice of the woman who finds 
herself in this unfortunate predicament.
  It has been found that many female prisoners enter prison suffering 
from a marriage of physical and psychological ailments, and many are 
pregnant before they enter prison. I know that the issue of abortion is 
one that has deep religious and philosophical implications. 
Notwithstanding, abortion is legal in this country, and it is still a 
legal health care option for women in this country, whether we like it 
or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on the DeGette 
amendment. Women in prison deserve to have access to needed health care 
services, and they deserve to have choice.
  Mr. Chairman, those of us who have been involved in this struggle so 
that women have the right to choice can stand here and make this 
argument, and my colleagues cannot do anything to us, they cannot pick 
on us. They have lost the fight. Abortions are legal. So what are they 
doing? They are moving to this vulnerable population because they think 
they cannot do anything about it. Are we not brave? Are we not great 
public policymakers? We can get those women in prison. However, they 
cannot do anything about all of those women who come to the floor, all 
of those women out there who are organized, all of those women who can 
stand up for their rights. They lost that battle a long time ago, but 
yes, women in prison, aha, we found somebody that we can take away this 
constitutional right, this guaranteed right.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote aye on the DeGette 
amendment. It is the only fair thing to do. It is the only reasonable 
thing to do. It is the only thing that good public policymakers, good 
public policymakers who would know how to use their power in a much 
better fashion than this, not picking on the vulnerable, not picking on 
those who cannot stand up for themselves. I think my colleagues deserve 
to treat yourselves better than that.
  Let us vote for this amendment and put it behind us.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeGette amendment. The 
DeGette amendment would strike section 103 which prohibits Federal 
funding of abortions, except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered, or in the case of rape.
  As I understand it, while legalized abortion may be somewhat 
controversial in America, there is very little controversy over the use 
of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the purpose of performing an abortion. The 
vast majority of Americans are very, very strongly opposed to this, and 
many of those people are pro-choice. I believe the reason why many 
people who are pro-choice are opposed to Federal funds being used for 
an abortion is because they recognize that it is the taking of a human 
life, and I think out of the respect of those who have very strong 
opposition to this, they think it is a reasonable thing that we should 
not be taking tax money from these people who believe that abortion is 
evil and use it for the purposes of performing an abortion.
  Just because these women happen to be incarcerated, I believe that it 
in absolutely no way undermines the sanctity of the human life that is 
in the womb. Indeed, when I am in Washington here, I stay around the 
corner from the Capitol, and my wife was watching this debate with me, 
and she asked me to come down because she felt so compelled that the 
arguments that were being made were just so ludicrous.
  I could go on and on and on. But there is a person I would like to 
quote from who I believe is a much more powerful person to speak on 
this issue, Mother Teresa who, of course, has gone on to be with the 
Lord. But in 1994 at the National Prayer Breakfast Mother Teresa said, 
``please don't kill the child. I want the child.'' She went on to say, 
``We are fighting abortion with adoption.''
  It has been said this evening, what will happen to these kids? Most 
of them get adopted or they go to be with the family of the 
incarcerated inmate. Mother Teresa went on to say, ``The greatest 
destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is war against the 
child, a direct killing of an innocent child.'' She then urged all 
Americans and diplomats who were assembled at that meeting to more 
fully understand the linkage of abortion with other forms of violence. 
She said, ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching people to 
love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the 
greatest destroyer of peace and love is abortion.''
  Now, I believe Mother Teresa was right in saying those words. I am a 
physician. My mother was pro-life, but when I was in school, I came 
under the influence of a lot of liberal thinking and I began to 
question, indeed, whether or not legalized abortion should not be okay. 
But then I had an experience as a medical student of actually seeing an 
abortion and realizing that it was the killing of an innocent human 
life.
  We as physicians, we are frequently asked to pronounce people dead 
who have expired, and what do we do? We listen for heart beats. In 
people who have had serious brain injuries, we look for brain waves. 
All of these children have beating hearts and brain waves. Many of my 
pro-choice physician colleagues, when I talk with them about this issue 
and they explain to me why they think legalized abortion should be 
available, they always close their arguments with this statement, they 
always say: though I believe it should be legal, I would never perform 
an abortion. Now, why do they say that? Because they know exactly what 
it is. It is the taking of a human life.
  It has been said tonight that this amounts to only 15, 50, 100, 75 a 
year. Nobody would propose a lax attitude if a new drug came out, 
certified by the FDA, but had a side effect of killing 15, 20, 30 
people, or if our food safety system was sufficiently compromised that 
50 or 100 people were to die a year. I think one life saved is worth 
the sacrifice, and I think one life saved is worth the argument, and I 
strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject 
this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise in support of the DeGette amendment. Here we go again, Mr. 
Chairman. This time it is an amendment to lift a restriction on access 
to abortion for women in Federal prisons. Today marks the 146th vote on 
choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress when the Republican 
Party gained the majority in this House. Each of these votes is 
documented on my Choice Report which can be found on my web site, 
www.House.gov/Maloney.
  Access to abortion has been restricted by this Congress bill by bill,

[[Page H5026]]

vote by vote. The majority is chipping away at a woman's right to 
choose procedure by procedure. The DeGette amendment seeks to correct 
one of these attacks on American women.
  Women in Federal prison do not check all of their rights at the 
prison door. Six percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they 
enter prison. Do they not deserve this legal medical care just like 
they would receive for any other medical condition? The answer is yes.
  Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their 
health care. So if this ban passes, it would continue to prevent these 
women from seeking needed reproductive health care. Most women 
prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse. Most women, if 
pregnant in prison, became pregnant from rape or abuse before they 
entered prison.

                              {time}  2230

  Most women prisoners are poor when they enter prison and cannot rely 
on anyone else for financial assistance. These women already face 
limited prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, a bleak 
future, and the certain loss of custody of the infant.
  Current law, tragically, ignores these women, and it also tragically 
ignores children born to women in prison. These children are taken from 
their mothers, who cannot raise them in a family environment or a 
stable environment. What kind of life are we providing for them? I urge 
a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not want to get into this debate. It is very 
late. But it is difficult to remain silent when so many things are 
being said about such an important subject. And there is no more 
important subject, there really is not, because this concerns the 
nature of man. This concerns the value we assign to that tiny little 
minute little beginning of human life in the womb. Is that something we 
can throw away and destroy because it is now inconvenient or is that a 
human life and as a member of the human family entitled to life, 
liberty, and the pursue happiness?
  I suggest to my colleagues that that little defenseless, powerless, 
voiceless little preborn child deserves the protection of society, not 
its enmity. Rather than picking on the most vulnerable by trying to 
impose our will on a pregnant woman in jail, we are defending the most 
vulnerable, which is the unborn child, who has nobody to defend him or 
her, more likely her than him. It is defending the powerless that we 
seek to do in not using and withholding taxpayers' money to pay for 
abortions.
  Now, nobody is denying the constitutional right to an abortion. More 
is the pity. That is one of the tragedies of our time, that our Supreme 
Court has said it is all right to exterminate another human being for 
almost any reason during the 9 months. That is what the substance of 
that decision is. And any more than one had to agree with Dred Scott, 
one does not have to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good decision. It is 
not. It is a tragic decision.
  But because we have the constitutional right does not mean we have a 
right to have it paid for, to have its implementation, its exercise 
paid for by the public purse. We have a right to free speech, but we do 
not have a right to the Government buying us a megaphone. So make the 
distinction. No one says they do not have the right, but who should pay 
for it? The public ought not to have to pay to exterminate innocent 
children.
  My colleagues call it health care. It is not very healthy for the 
unborn child, abortion. It is terminal. Capital punishment is a popular 
cause now, and people are rallying to the defense of prisoners who have 
been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Well, the unborn 
child has committed no crime. It has been brought into the world 
without any option on his or her part, and she or he is there, 
defenseless; and it is my colleagues' job and it is my job not to 
impose a religious view on anybody but to follow the founders of our 
country who said that we all have an inalienable right to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  My colleagues can escape this, I suppose, by defining the unborn as 
not yet human, as one of our good friends did over there when he said 
he did not know when human life begins. It begins at the beginning. 
When a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with what? She is pregnant 
with life, human life. And that is not animal, mineral or vegetable; it 
is a tiny member of the human family. And if my colleagues are 
ambiguous as to when that little tiny entity becomes a beneficiary of 
the Constitution, then they have not thought about it, and they have a 
failure of imagination.
  No, that little life is a human life. It is vulnerable, it is 
powerless, and somebody has to defend it. We have to defend it. It is 
innocent and deserves protection. So I hope this amendment, well-
intentioned as it is, but terribly, tragically misguided, is defeated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment, and I want 
to thank my colleague for her strong leadership on this issue.
  A woman's right to make a private decision to terminate a pregnancy 
is the law of the land. The prohibition on prisoners' access to 
abortion services in Federal prison facilities contained in this bill 
does not make it impossible for women in prison to obtain an abortion; 
but it deliberately makes it more expensive, more difficult, and less 
private. In my view, the only reason the ban does not go further and 
ban abortion outright is because Americans do support a woman's right 
to choose.
  I respect my good friend and my colleague's views. These are very 
personal decisions. But we cannot impose our personal views, in my 
judgment, on the next person. I know that my colleagues would vote, 
many of them, to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, they would probably do 
it immediately, if they thought they could. But they do not go that far 
because Americans would not let them do it. Instead, those who oppose a 
woman's right to choose take every opportunity to make the decision 
ever more difficult, dangerous, and expensive.
  I support the DeGette amendment because I believe that my colleagues' 
approach is the wrong one. If we agree that there should be less 
abortions, and I think we all do, we can work and should work together 
to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy less necessary. The 
policy we are debating in this amendment, which allows women in Federal 
prison to pay for an abortion outside but not obtain one inside the 
prison system, only makes the decision to terminate harder.
  What should we do to make the need for terminating a pregnancy less 
necessary? We can work together to promote contraception access and 
use. We could work harder to educate people about taking responsibility 
for protecting themselves from unintended pregnancies. We could do 
more, my colleagues, to prevent sexual abuse, rape and incest. We could 
work together, as our constituents clearly would like us to do, to 
insure that most women never have to make the most personal decision 
about terminating their pregnancy. Less necessary, not more harassing 
and less private.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeGette amendment. 
It is the right thing to do. Let us work together to make abortions 
less necessary. We can do that together.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that is offered by 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and I wanted 
to thank her for her leadership on this issue. Once again we are forced 
into a debate about the access to a legal medical service for those 
whose voices are often ignored and whose rights are neglected.
  Regardless of our views on abortion, the Supreme Court has been very 
clear. The law of the land remains that women have a legal right to 
choose an abortion. This right remains intact even if a woman is 
incarcerated. For women in Federal prisons, the Bureau of Prisons is 
their sole option for health care.
  There are also extensive studies about women in prisons who are 
victims of sexual misconduct. The reality is that most women who enter 
the prison system are poor and many are isolated from family support. 
According to the terms of this bill, they are effectively excluded from 
their legal right

[[Page H5027]]

to an abortion if they are unable to come up with the money to pay for 
one of their own.
  Some of my colleagues question why we should feel any sympathy for a 
woman in prison trying to get an abortion. Yes, it is true she may have 
broken the law. It is true she must give up certain rights. But the 
courts, the courts have ruled that she does not have to give up her 
right to an abortion or her right to adequate medical care.
  This is not about having sympathy; it is our obligation to provide 
these women with the reproductive health rights to which they are 
rightfully entitled under our Constitution. This bill effectively 
strips that right for the vast majority of female prisoners who are 
unable to earn enough in prison jobs to pay for private medical 
services.
  That is why we should approve the DeGette amendment today. I ask my 
colleagues to stop, stop the erosion of this legal right. Stop 
restricting women's access to health care services. Vote ``yes'' on the 
DeGette amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most important, private decisions that a 
woman has to make in her life, a gift given to her only by God and that 
only women can participate in, is the right to bear a child. I rise in 
support of the DeGette amendment.
  Regardless of what our personal views are on that very personal 
decision that women have to make, abortion is lawful in our country. 
Women who find themselves incarcerated in the Federal system ought to 
be allowed to have a procedure that is lawful and, at the same time, 
use funding that is available through our tax dollars that would allow 
that lawful procedure to take place.
  It is unfortunate that people in this Chamber want to restrict women 
in several ways and, as we have discussed with the DeGette amendment 
tonight, a woman's right to choose. Now, whether we personally believe 
that is a right that is given every woman by God, it is that woman's 
decision. To restrict it, to withhold funding for a lawful procedure 
that a woman wants to make with her God and her man or husband or 
significant other, I think, is appalling.
  The DeGette amendment is a good one. The procedure is a legal one. 
Who gives us the right to determine that we should take the money away 
from a woman after she has made that most very special important 
decision? It is not right. I hope we will adopt the DeGette amendment. 
I hope we will give women who find themselves incarcerated and who will 
soon be coming back into society, hopefully whole and free and healthy, 
to make the decision that they see fit for themselves in their lifetime 
at that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette amendment. I thank the 
gentlewoman for offering the amendment. It is important that we allow 
women to make this decision. Again, God has chosen her to bear 
children. Only women can do that. Allow us to make that decision for 
ourselves.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Rep. DeGette's pro-choice 
amendment to strike this bill's language banning the use of federal 
funds for abortion services for women in federal prisons. Currently, 
the law prohibits the use of federal funds to perform abortions in 
health facilities in federal prisons, except in cases of rape or life 
endangerment. For women who can afford to pay for a private abortion, 
the Bureau of Prisons must provide transportation to a private 
facility. However, other women are denied their rights and the 
opportunity to make vital decisions determining their own health care.
  Women deserve access to the full range of available reproductive 
health care services, including abortion. Unfortunately, the anti-
choice movement continues to deny coverage for abortion services to 
women who are dependent on federal resources. This includes women in 
the military, female government employees, poor women, and incarcerated 
females. These existing restrictions are draconian and problematic and 
we must fight them all.
  The ban on abortion for women in federal prisons is perhaps the most 
tragic because it denies incarcerated women their fundamental rights 
and denies them the ability to make their own health care decisions 
concerning their own medical needs. In federal prisons, federal funds 
cover inmates' food, shelter, clothing and all health care services. 
Why do we draw this line in the middle of health care services for 
women?
  Existing law punishes impoverished women and marginalized women. It 
is an unfair and inhumane law. Women in prison lack the ability to 
borrow and frequently lack an outside support network. We should not 
punish these women for their poverty.
  I stand with the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL in support 
of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette 
amendment and for the rights of all women.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have the attention of the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. Chairman, on each of the last three appropriation bills, we were 
asked by the majority to agree to an overall time limit so that we 
could finish the bills on a reasonable time schedule, and we agreed on 
all three of those bills. Last night, at the close of business, at the 
direction of the minority leader, I went to the majority and indicated 
that we would appreciate it if at the beginning of business today, 
sometime between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., that the majority would present to 
us a proposal for time limits on all amendments pending on the bill so 
that we could get some kind of time agreement so that Members would 
know where they were, and we could finish this bill at a reasonable 
time.

                              {time}  2245

  We did not receive an offer until fairly late, as you can see, this 
evening.
  I asked the majority leader why it took so long before we could begin 
negotiations on this bill, and the response that I got was that 
sometimes bills have to ripen. I, frankly, think that this debate and 
this bill at this point is over ripe. And we believe on this side that 
we ought to vote on the pending amendments, that we ought to rise, and 
that tomorrow morning we ought to come back prepared to get a time 
agreement to limit debate on all amendments to the bill.
  We believe that to prevent amendments from breeding and multiplying 
that we ought to have an understanding that there would be no further 
amendments that could be offered from this point on. And we would ask 
the majority the same request that we asked them last night, if they 
could present us tomorrow morning with a proposal for time limits on 
all remaining amendments to this bill.
  What we would suggest, after we have discussed this with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who, as you know, feels very 
strongly about his amendment. He has indicated to us that he would be 
willing to limit debate on that amendment to an hour.
  There has been some expression of concern that that might be too 
long; and so, he has reluctantly agreed that he would be willing to 
debate that amendment tomorrow morning for 40 minutes.
  And so, what I would urge is that the majority agree to a proposition 
under which we would vote tonight, come back tomorrow morning, have an 
understanding yet tonight that when we resume tomorrow morning that the 
Waxman amendment would be pending for no longer than 40 minutes, and 
that during that time we could work out a remaining agreement on the 
rest of the bill so that we could guarantee that the bill would be 
finished by Monday night.
  In that way, everyone can have their say in an orderly way, Members 
can know when they can catch their planes, Members will know when they 
have to be here for amendments, Members will also know and the 
Committee will know that there will not be any additional amendments.
  I am sure the majority does not want amendments to be still coming 
into the

[[Page H5028]]

desk over the weekend, which is why we are prepared, in an agreement 
tomorrow morning, to settle all remaining time differences.
  I would urge the majority to consider that so that we can be back 
here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning ready with an understandable 
arrangement.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to thank the gentleman again for his willingness to work on this. We 
have all worked hard on it.
  As I understand, we are talking about probably propounding a 
unanimous consent after this next series of votes that would close out 
the filing of any amendments, in which case we would also ask for a 40-
minute debate on the Waxman amendment as the first order of business 
tomorrow morning then, during that time, work out a unanimous consent 
agreement that would cover remaining pending amendments that would 
allow us to finish the bill while rising at 2 o'clock tomorrow, finish 
the bill Monday evening, perhaps with the Committee resuming work 
Monday afternoon for votes to be rolled after 6 o'clock and then 
completing the work Monday evening, hopefully at a reasonable hour.
  Is that correct, to the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, it is. The only loose end is the question of when you 
would want to begin Monday. Because, obviously, Members are going to be 
coming back on their planes and, so, they will not be able to start 
until mid-afternoon on Monday. Would the gentleman suggest 4 o'clock, 
or what?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
think the chairman and ranking member have been consulting on this. We 
will talk to other Members who might be critical to that interest.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I could not hear what the 
gentleman just said.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman, I said, will yield, I 
think both the chairman and ranking member have been consulted about 
this. We will, of course, go through the courtesy of checking with 
other Members. But we would propose resuming the debate around 4 
o'clock on Monday, holding any votes that are ordered until the 6 
o'clock period of time when Members are back from their flights, and 
then cleaning up all votes that are remaining and then returning and 
completing the bill Monday evening.
  Mr. OBEY. So we would begin the debate at 4 o'clock with no votes 
before 6 o'clock on Monday.
  Mr. ARMEY. Right. And then, of course, Members with amendments that 
would be up at that time would be advised so that they could be here 
and finish that night.
  Mr. OBEY. If that is acceptable to the majority, then I would urge 
that the Committee rise and we vote on the pending amendments.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I think the 
appropriate order would now be for the Committee to take the votes that 
are pending at this time and then we would work out the formal language 
of the UC that would cover that business that would take us through the 
amendment in the morning.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, what would be left to decide? I mean, we do not want 
to keep Members hanging around here another hour while we fine-tune 
something.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
believe we have two or three votes that are ordered now. We could at 
this time, I believe the debate is completed on the amendment that was 
pending, take those votes, during the period of those votes get the 
formal writing of the unanimous consent that would take us through the 
evening into the 40-minute amendment in the morning, and then get that 
propounded and more or less get ourselves locked in for a fresh start 
in the morning.
  Mr. OBEY. So what we would agree to tonight is that there would be no 
further business tonight, that the Waxman amendment would be pending 
for 40 minutes tomorrow, and that no further amendments would be in 
order other than those already at the desk, and then tomorrow morning 
we will work out the remainder of the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. ARMEY. Absolutely right.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to be a stumbling 
block here, and I would agree to what we have to. But I would hope that 
for future bills we set up a system by which from the beginning we know 
we are going to head into this situation and treat the folks that are 
at the end of the bill with amendments the same way we treat the folks 
that are at the beginning.
  I was lucky, I got my two amendments up front and we are under the 5-
minute rule. Now people that will come later will be treated 
differently.
  So if we know that we are always going to run into this, why can we 
not start off a bill knowing that this is the way we are going to have 
to treat it rather than have to play this game at this end.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the ranking member, your 
point is well-taken. We try to be as courteous and considerate of all 
the Members as we can and also of the floor managers' ability to get 
their bill up and move it along. But, again, your point is well-taken.
  Let me again emphasize the point. As we work this thing through, it 
will be necessary for us to complete the work on this bill Monday 
night. I believe, with all good diligence and cooperation, we could do 
that at a reasonable hour Monday night. But we will want to finish it 
Monday night.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with that understanding, 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to this discussion between 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), and I would like to suggest that the complaint that we 
have used too much time on this bill and the two previous bills is 
valid. We have used too much time on the bill. But I would offer to my 
friend from Wisconsin that the vast majority of that time was consumed 
by your side and most of the rhetoric was pure political rhetoric.
  Now, we have been very accommodating. We have allowed the debate to 
go on and on and on on amendments that were truly in violation of the 
rule and that were subject to a point of order. We did not raise the 
point of order. We reserved the point of order so you could continue 
the debate. We have been very accommodating.
  We have now had an offer for an hour's debate on the Waxman 
amendment. We have already debated that amendment twice this week. We 
do not need an hour on that amendment. I suggested 30 minutes, and then 
the response was, well, 46 minutes. That is nitpicking. Thirty minutes 
is more than enough on a subject that has already been debated twice.
  Now, if we can reach an accommodation and if we can reach an 
agreement that is going to be fair to both sides, then I will agree to 
it. But if we do not, I will object to it and we will just continue the 
dialogue for however long it takes. But what is fair is fair. What is 
fair to that side has got to be fair to my side. And that is the way it 
is going to be. And if we cannot get a fair agreement, there will be no 
agreement.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my good friend the chairman, and I 
understand the emotion here, all of us want to go home, but I will just 
tell him, at the end of the Interior bill, if he goes back and looks 
where those amendments were, they were all on his side of the aisle. 
Vote after vote after vote, we revoted things.
  And so, do not say this is not evenhanded. They use their tactics 
whenever they think it is going to do them an advantage. And the 
gentleman from Washington knows just how exactly that felt.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am glad my friend

[[Page H5029]]

from Florida has gotten things off his chest. We know what the facts 
are. I am not going to bother to debate them. We are trying to 
cooperate here and to help the majority do the job that the majority 
has, which is to try to get bills through the House.
  We are trying to work that out. If the gentleman would like to accept 
the offer that we have raised, we are willing to proceed now. I had 
assumed, given the fact that the majority leader indicated what he just 
described, that that is what we had agreed to. I assume that still 
stands.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, on these unanimous 
consent agreements these amendments have been on both sides of the 
agreement. Republicans have had them and Democrats have had them. I 
think it has been very fair.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank everybody again. We have 
worked hard on this. I think we have got a good agreement. I think the 
Members are ready for us to move forward on it.
  The Members should be advised that the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) has a limited supply of Krispy Kreme doughnuts that 
would be available during the vote right here at the desk.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), amendment No. 36 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Campbell

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes 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 239, 
noes 173, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--173

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Berman
     Coburn
     Cook
     Dixon
     Filner
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Myrick
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vento
     Wise
     Wynn

                              {time}  2320

  Messrs. LINDER, PALLONE, ADERHOLT, DIAZ-BALART, GALLEGLY, FOSSELLA 
and RILEY and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. GRAHAM, HALL of Texas, BARCIA, PETRI, STRICKLAND, WATTS of 
Oklahoma, McCRERY, MORAN of Kansas, GREENWOOD, DICKS, NETHERCUTT, 
HERGER and BENTSEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Reducing Next Vote to 5 Minutes

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be 
authorized to reduce the next vote to a 5-minute vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to 
discuss this evening's schedule and tomorrow's schedule and to 
reemphasize to Members a discussion that we had earlier this evening. 
Perhaps some Members did not hear it and would need to hear it.
  There was a unanimous consent agreement that has been discussed that

[[Page H5030]]

will do the following: the votes that will be cast now will be the 
final business of the evening, with three more votes to follow. 
Tomorrow morning the body will reconvene at 9 o'clock to resume 
business on this bill, in which case the Waxman amendment would be the 
first order of business. There is a time limit on that amendment of 40 
minutes, 20 to a side.
  For the remainder of the amendments to the bill, in order for any 
further amendments to be considered as part of that agreement they must 
be submitted before the close of business today. Tomorrow, time 
agreements will be reached concerning each of the amendments on the 
list, which is the universe for the bill.
  The majority leader also reiterated that we would finish this bill 
Monday night, and that could be a late night. The agreement is that we 
would resume business on the bill at 4 o'clock Monday afternoon, with 
votes rolled at least until 6 p.m. Monday evening to accommodate 
Members' travel plans. The bill would then be finished Monday night on 
the amendments that are remaining at that time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman would 
explain in a little more detail about the potential time limits on 
amendments for tomorrow and Monday? That seemed to be a little vague 
there.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the understanding I had 
of the unanimous consent request was that the majority leader, the 
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee and the 
subcommittee, myself and the minority leader would reach agreement on 
the amount of time that each amendment would be considered. That is as 
far as the conversation went at the time of the unanimous concept 
request. That is about all I can say that I know about.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, when does the gentleman plan to propound his unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. ROGERS. That is being prepared. When the Committee rises this 
evening, we would propound the unanimous consent request on the 
amendments, and then tomorrow morning the unanimous consent would be 
propounded on the time balance on the rest of the amendments.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair 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. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), 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 128, 
noes 284, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--128

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                               NOES--284

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Berman
     Boucher
     Coburn
     Cook
     Dixon
     Filner
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Myrick
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2333

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Scott

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 36 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H5031]]

                             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 184, 
noes 226, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wise
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Berman
     Cannon
     Coburn
     Cook
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Filner
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Myrick
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2342

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 254, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--156

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

                               NOES--254

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     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
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins

[[Page H5032]]


     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Berman
     Coburn
     Cook
     Dixon
     Filner
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Myrick
     Obey
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Thomas
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2349

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained attending my 
son's high graduation and missed roll call votes 311-318. If I had been 
here, I would have voted in the following manner:
  Rollcall 311: ``Yes'' (rule regarding H.R. 4615, Legislature Branch 
Appropriations).
  Rollcall 312: ``Yes'' (Ryan lockbox amendment).
  Rollcall 313: ``Yes'' (final passage, H.R. 4615, Legislature Branch 
Appropriations).
  Rollcall 314: ``Yes'' (rule, H.R. 4690, Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations).
  Rollcall 315: ``Yes'' (Campbell resolution cutting salaries and 
expenses for prison industries).
  Rollcall 316: ``No'' (cutting state criminal alien apprehension 
program).
  Rollcall 317: ``No'' (cutting truth in sentencing grants).
  Rollcall 318: ``Yes'' (regarding abortions for female prison 
inmates).

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________