[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19469-19535]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 273 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2670.

                              {time}  1248


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2670, making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
fiscal year 2000, provides funding for programs whose impact ranges 
from the safety of people in their homes, to the conduct of diplomacy 
around the world, to predicting the weather from satellites in outer 
space.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill requires a very delicate balancing of needs 
and requirements, from ongoing activities and operations of the 
departments and regulatory agencies, to new areas of concern like 
preparing to respond to the threat of domestic terrorism or beefing up 
worldwide security for our embassies overseas, to special funding 
requirements like the decennial census.
  This year, our capacity to respond to all of these needs is tempered 
by the fiscal restraint under which we are forced to operate. The 1997 
budget act for 5 years imposed spending restraints in each of those 5 
years, in other words, budget caps, spending caps, beyond which we 
cannot exceed. We all went home after we passed that Budget Act of 
1997, most of us voted for it, both sides of the aisle, and we crowed 
about how we were saving America's fiscal integrity, and we did.
  Mr. Chairman, the piper is at the door waiting to be paid for that 
party, and this bill represents the piper. This is a very, very austere 
bill. We are having to live with those budget caps and yet maintain 
some very, very critical agencies of this government, a little bit like 
as I told in the full committee, the old drunk back home that was 
arrested for setting his bed on fire at the rooming house where he 
lived, he came into court and the judge asked for his plea, and the old 
fellow said, ``Well, your honor, I plead guilty to being drunk, but 
that doggone bed was on fire when I got in it.'' I am telling my 
colleagues that these budget caps are with us. We have to live with it. 
And we will.
  We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill and make 
very hard judgments about how to spend these limited resources.
  The bill before the Committee today recommends a total of $35.8 
billion in discretionary funding that comes from three places: $27.1 
billion is general purpose discretionary funds; $4.2 billion is from 
the violent crime trust fund; and $4.5 billion is emergency funding.

[[Page 19470]]

  Leaving aside the Census, and oh, how I wish I could leave aside the 
Census, the bill is $833 million below current spending and $1.3 
billion below the CBO's freeze level for fiscal year 2000.
  For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $18.1 billion, $6 
million above current spending. Increases are provided to maintain 
current operating levels of key law enforcement agencies. FBI, DEA, 
U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Bureau of Prisons all are 
maintained at their current operating level. And we address a severe 
detention space shortfall in the Bureau of Prisons and the INS with 
this bill.
  These increases are offset by a decrease in funding for COPS, from 
$1.4 billion to $268 million. I would point out that that $268 million 
is the full authorization level set in law for the final year of the 
current program. That is all we are allowed by law to appropriate, and 
we did.
  Local law enforcement and criminal justice block grants are 
maintained at or near last year's level, $1.3 billion more than the 
administration requested. That assures that your State and local law 
enforcement agencies, your sheriffs, your police departments, continue 
to have the resources to fight crime in your districts.
  The major program increases in the bill can be counted on two 
fingers, and they are both in Justice, $100 million for 1,000 new 
border patrol agents, which the administration refused to request, and 
$22 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration, equaling the 
administration's budget request.
  I would point out and remind Members that the latest statistics on 
violent crime in the United States show that America is now suffering 
the least number of violent crimes since we have been keeping records. 
I would like to say to my subcommittee members over those years, and 
the full committee members, and the full Congress, a big thank you on 
behalf of the American people for staying with funding for these law 
agencies over these years to enable America now to have the lowest 
crime rate in recorded history.
  For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, we continue to 
provide resources for the naturalization backlog reduction initiative, 
for the detention shortfall, and for the border patrol, and we continue 
to hope against hope that the most mismanaged and unmanageable agency 
of the Federal Government, the INS, will dig its way out of its 
continuing state of crisis. They cannot claim money as a cause, because 
we have given them all the money they can spend and more, to be frank. 
We have doubled this agency's budget in 5 years, tripled it in the last 
10 years, and yet it manages now to perform crisis after crisis.
  In the Department of Commerce, we provide full funding for the 2000 
decennial census. All the money is there. Every penny that is needed by 
the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census to conduct the 
decennial census is in this bill. Make no mistake. For those who have 
been crying all of these years for adequate funding for the decennial 
census, and after we had pleaded with the administration to furnish us 
the dollar figure of the request for a full census, only 7 weeks ago, 
months and months behind schedule, they finally coughed up the figure. 
That figure now in this bill, $4.5 billion, is an increase of $3.5 
billion over current spending, no restrictions. ``Do the census. You 
got the money.''
  In the rest of the Commerce section, we provide $3.6 billion, which 
is $500 million below fiscal year 1999. We include current operating 
levels for the National Weather Service and avert commercial service 
office closings overseas, which are more than offset by decreases in 
low priority NOAA programs and the termination of the Advanced 
Technology Program.
  Judiciary, $3.9 billion, an increase of $272 million, maintains 
current operating levels.
  State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, $5.7 
billion, $1.3 billion below current appropriations, including 
emergencies.
  We include $568 million, Mr. Chairman, for the costs of worldwide 
security improvements to our embassies, places where Americans work 
overseas, and we replace vulnerable embassies started in 1999 with 
emergency funding.
  We include $351 million for the third and final year of U.N. arrears, 
subject to authorization, the amount agreed to by the White House and 
Congress in the pending authorization.
  It abolishes two agencies, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and 
the U.S. Information Agency. We merge them into the State Department.

                              {time}  1300

  Most of the related agencies are frozen at 1999 levels; 141 million 
for the LSC; for SBA, 734 million, a $15 million increase over fiscal 
1999. And we continue our emphasis on funding disaster loans, a 
function that SBA has continued to raid to fund salaries and expenses 
over the last 3 years. This is the second year we have been required to 
send them a message on that issue.
  This is the bare bones of the recommendations before my colleagues 
today. It is based on a freeze with reductions where we could, and 
increases above fiscal 1999 where needed to maintain operations of 
critical law enforcement and other agencies. We give no ground on the 
war on crime and drugs. We provide the resources to State and local law 
enforcement that has helped bring the violent crime rate down for 5 
straight years to its lowest level since Justice began tracking in 
1973. We fully fund the 2000 census. We pull our weight with respect to 
meeting the need for fiscal restraint and more.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents our best take on matching needs 
with scarce resources to do the right thing.
  I want to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), who has been a very effective and a very valued 
partner and colleague on this bill. He has been a quick study. He is 
brand new on the subcommittee and brand new as ranking member, and this 
is a complicated bill with a lot of coverage, and he has spent a lot of 
late nights working getting ready for preparing to help bring this bill 
to the floor. I want to thank him for his good work.
  I also want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee: the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dixon), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for all of their help 
and assistance.
  And let us take a moment to extend our deepest sympathy to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and his family on the loss 
of his father who preceded Alan, of course, as a Member of this body 
and on this subcommittee. Our hearts go out to Alan and all of his 
family, and I thank him for his valued help in preparing this bill.
  Finally, I want to thank my full chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey). They have been marvelous in helping us move this bill forward. 
We have tried very hard to produce the best bill we possibly could 
within the resources we had to work with. I think it is a good bill; it 
is a fair bill. It is austere, but I think it is fair, and I urge all 
Members to support it.

[[Page 19471]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.000



[[Page 19472]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.001



[[Page 19473]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.002



[[Page 19474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.003



[[Page 19475]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.004



[[Page 19476]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.005



[[Page 19477]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.006



[[Page 19478]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.007



[[Page 19479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU99.008



[[Page 19480]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we take up H.R. 2670, the bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the 
Judiciary, and several related agencies. It has been a great personal 
pleasure for me to work with our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) and with the other members of the subcommittee. Special 
thanks also to my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  The gentleman from Kentucky's (Mr. Rogers) many years on this 
subcommittee have given him tremendous knowledge, both broad and deep, 
of the wide variety of topics under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. 
His stewardship of the subcommittee is marked by his fairness and 
attentiveness to the interests and concerns of Members. I have also 
benefited greatly from the guidance of the former chairman and ranking 
Democrat of the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), who has spent so many years on this bill. I know all my 
colleagues join me and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in 
sending their condolences to Alan and his family on the loss of his 
father, Robert Mollohan, who served with such distinction in this body.
  I must also say a word about our very professional and able staff who 
have worked long and hard, including nights and weekends, to get us to 
the floor so quickly after the decision on offsets. More on that later. 
They enabled us to begin putting a bill together. Since we are on 
first-name basis, I will do it this way. On the majority side they are 
Jim and Jennifer, Mike and Cordia and Christine, with Kevin and Jason 
from the office of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). On our 
side we have Sally and Pat, who have done just tremendous work on my 
behalf, and of course all of my personal staff under the leadership of 
Lucy Hand.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, this year I was catapulted from 
not on the subcommittee at all to ranking Democrat. Learning this large 
and challenging bill practically from scratch has made this an 
interesting and educational year for me.
  As the chairman has explained, the bill includes budget authority of 
about $35.7 billion. This is certainly much better than our initial 
302(b) allocation, but it is still about $3 billion short, below the 
budget request. The manner in which the chairman allocated funds among 
the major accounts was for the most part fair and evenhanded, and I 
applaud his efforts to minimize staff cuts and facility closings.
  But the bill still has problems. The biggest problem is simply the 
inadequacy of the subcommittee's allocation. This bill underfunds 
important programs. It does not fund important Member and 
administration initiatives, and still has to use gimmicks to stay under 
the allocation. It is ironic that House and Senate Republicans pointed 
to forecasts of huge on-budget surpluses to justify passing their bills 
to make massive backloaded tax cuts; but forecasts of future economic 
activities are unreliable at best, and, more important, the surpluses 
mostly depend on Congress sticking with the deepening appropriations 
cuts enacted in the Balanced Budget Act, which, incidentally, I did not 
support. The gimmicks used to make this bill look as if it is under the 
FY2000 cap show how unlikely it is that these spending cuts will 
materialize over the next decade.
  The main gimmick, of course, is the emergency designation for the 
census. This provision, imposed on the committee by the Republican 
leadership, is a misuse of the emergency designation; we have known 
that a census would be required in 2000 for about 200 years. It also 
means spending the Social Security surplus.
  On more specific provisions, the bill provides the Census Bureau with 
the resources it needs to do the 2000 census and the necessary quality 
checks on it. This is a tremendous accomplishment, and I am very proud 
of the work that both sides of the aisle did on this.
  While I am pleased that the bill includes funding for the U.N. 
arrears, I am very concerned that the bill underfunds our U.N. 
accounts. This may cost us our vote in the General Assembly and, with 
it, any leverage we might hope to exercise over management and budget 
reforms at the U.N. The bill is $95 million short of the request for 
arrears, creates new arrears by cutting funding for peacekeeping, and 
conditions $100 million of our payments on a time-consuming 
certification process. But if we do not pay the U.N. $352 million by 
December 31, our General Assembly vote will automatically, and we mean 
automatically, be lost.
  The most troubling shortfall and the major exception to the 
relatively evenhanded treatment of other agencies is the real cut to 
SBA salaries and expenses, which would have a drastic impact on the 
agency. If enacted, the SBA estimates it would require a reduction in 
force of 2,400 employees or 75 percent of SBA's work force. Apart from 
effectively closing down activities vital to our Nation's small 
businesses, it would also hamper SBA's ability to monitor a loan 
portfolio totaling $45 billion. By the end of this process, this 
devastating cut must be restored.
  The Legal Services Corporation, too, was grossly underfunded in what 
has become an annual ritual. The bill provides only $141 million, less 
than half of last year's level, and 200 million below the President's 
request. Each year for the last 3 or 4 years this level has been 
proposed, and each year there has been an amendment raising the level 
to $250 million or so. And so it will be again this year.
  Other important examples of underfunding includes the COPS program, 
over $1 billion under the request; the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, frozen at $33 million below the request; the Civil Rights 
Commission, also frozen at $2 million below the request; the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, half a billion under the 
request; and the State Department, half a billion under the request.
  Unfunded initiatives include the 21st century policing initiative or 
COPS II, the anti-drug initiative on the State or local law 
enforcement, efforts to combat terrorism and cybercrime, the advanced 
technology program, the new markets initiative, the Lands Legacy 
initiative, the tobacco lawsuit, and the Pacific Salmon Recovery 
initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) has generally done a good job distributing funds within a much 
too small allocation. The meager size of the bill and the programs and 
initiatives that cannot be fully funded within the total remain 
problems, and the administration has raised serious concerns with the 
bill, many of which I have mentioned, and has suggested that it would 
be vetoed in its present form.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my chairman to 
address these problems. I am hopeful that by the time we bring a 
conference report to the floor we will have more money to work with so 
that we can restore much-needed resources to the important programs in 
this bill and to accommodate requests for important initiatives.
  Let me say, so that I am clear, that this is so important to me that 
I am giving my vote to this bill in support of the chairman's desire to 
make this a better bill. I cannot account for the rest of my Members 
who may feel that this bill, as it stands, will not get any better, and 
we will see quite a large number of Members voting against it. I 
personally will vote for it in the hope that we can achieve our 
objectives. If we cannot achieve the improvements that I hope for, I 
will oppose the conference report. If the President vetoes the bill, I 
will vote to sustain his veto. But for now I choose to move the process 
along, and I will support H.R. 2670.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Youngc), the very effective chairman of the 
full committee who has done a wonderful job this year bringing these 
bills to the floor.

[[Page 19481]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and 
to pay a special tribute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, 
because as we get to the end of the appropriations process for the 13 
regular bills, the job gets a little more difficult, and they have done 
a really outstanding job in bringing us a bill that we should pass 
here.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) mentioned he wants to make 
it a better bill. He will be an important member of the conference 
committee as will the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who will 
chair the conference committee.
  But they have got a good bill now. Could they use more money? Why 
sure. Back in our homes we could all use more money, at least most of 
us could. And in our businesses, we all could use more money. The 
government loves to have more money.
  But we took on the responsibility of trying to stay within the budget 
cap, at least balance the budget and stay at or below last year's 
level, and that is what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 
been able to accomplish. I know there are some disagreements and some 
differences in how we got where we are, but let me tell my colleagues 
where we are.
  First off, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Appropriations 
really have a special responsibility to this House and to the Nation. 
Of all the legislation that we consider in this House, the only bills 
that really have to pass, that must pass, are the appropriation bills, 
and the appropriators have recognized that responsibility, and I am 
happy to report that as we pass this bill today, we will have passed 
through the House 11 of the 13 regular appropriations bills.
  The 13th bill we had put off by agreement until we resume our sitting 
in September, and the VA-HUD bill that we were scheduled to consider on 
tomorrow, we have delayed consideration out of respect for our 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) due to the 
loss of his father yesterday. So we will put off that bill until we 
reconvene in September.

                              {time}  1315

  We will have done 11 regular bills before we break for the recess. We 
have done two supplementals. We will have done two conference reports 
by the time we pass this bill today. So 11 plus 2 is 13, plus 2 more is 
15 important measures that the appropriators have brought to this House 
and passed through this House.
  We also expect, Mr. Chairman, to have 3 more conference reports ready 
on regular bills before this week is over.
  We have done a good job. There have been some disagreements, some in 
subcommittee, some in full committee, some on the floor. But, Mr. 
Chairman, this committee has had to consider, and I want all Members to 
pay attention to this, this committee has had to consider requests from 
Members, and Members have every right to come to this body to represent 
their districts and to represent what they believe is right for 
America, for some $80 billion in requests to add money over the budget. 
In most of those cases, while most of them were good projects that 
should have been considered, we did not have the money to fund them.
  Despite the fact we had to say no to an awful lot of Members because 
we did not have the money to fund the program that they wanted to fund 
exactly the way they wanted it, and again I want all Members to listen 
to this, Mr. Chairman, the Transportation appropriations bill passed 
with a vote of 429 to 3; the Energy and Water appropriations bill 
passed with a vote of 420 to 8; the Military Construction 
appropriations bill passed with a vote of 418 to 4; the Defense 
appropriations bill passed with a vote of 379 to 45; the Interior 
appropriations bill passed with a vote of 377 to 47; the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill passed with a vote of 333 to 92; and the 
list goes on. The bills have been receiving great bipartisan support.
  The appropriators have done a good job, have brought good 
appropriations bills at or below last year's level, which is the first 
time that has happened, except for national defense, where we did have 
increases that were necessary because of the many, many deployments 
that our troops have been required to conduct in the last 6 or 7 years.
  So I support this bill. It is a good bill. I understand that in 
conference the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will have an 
opportunity to work further on the bill, but with the leadership of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the tremendous staff that 
we have on this subcommittee, I am satisfied that the end result will 
be a product that most of us can support.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say the remarks that I will make are in no way 
intended to criticize either the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee or the distinguished ranking member. They have both done 
the best job they can under the circumstances. The problem is that the 
circumstances are ridiculous.
  Let me cite first my concerns with the specifics of this bill. This 
bill, despite evidence that community policing has been of great 
assistance in lowering the crime rate, this bill effectively ends the 
Cops on the Beat program. It provides the last remaining money that is 
needed to fund that program, but it does not fund the follow-on program 
that is meant to put additional police on the streets in our 
communities, because it is not authorized. If this Congress does not 
provide that money, it is a serious mistake.
  This bill would take a number of actions which I think are extremely 
mean-minded in terms of the way it deals with the poor and with 
minority groups in our society. The bill effectively terminates the 
Legal Services Corporation. The funding provided would effectively 
result in a 3-year phaseout of that corporation.
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it cuts $33 million or 
11 percent below the request. We ought to be doing more to enforce the 
law against discrimination, not less in real terms.
  The bill eliminates the entire $20 million requested for the Justice 
Department to initiate litigation against the tobacco industry to 
recover Federal costs for smoking-related illnesses under Medicare.
  The bill effectively will provide for the loss of the U.S. voting 
rights in the General Assembly in the United Nations. That is 
definitely not in our national interest.
  It provides very deep cuts in environmental programs, such as our 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs and the 
National Weather Service, and it has an outrageous provision which, in 
a gross abuse of the Budget Act, pretends that somehow the Congress did 
not know we were going to have to appropriate over $4 billion to run 
the decennial census. That abuse of the budget process by declaring 
those funds to be emergency funds outside the normal limits of the 
budget process discredits the committee.
  I believe in the committee having the right when we have a legitimate 
emergency to declare one and to move forward to meet that emergency, 
but if we pretend that amounts that we know we are going to spend on a 
regular basis are actually emergency appropriations, we lose the right 
to have people view our request with credibility when we make requests 
for a legitimate emergency designation.
  The problem with this bill is simply that it is not real. It is yet 
another bill that allows the majority in this House to maintain the 
fiction that we can afford to pass out $1 trillion in tax cuts, two-
thirds of the benefits of which are going to the highest income 10 
percent of the people in this country. It pretends that we can do all 
of that, but there is a hidden assumption. That hidden assumption is 
that the government is going to take everything that we do in the 
appropriations process, the education programs, the health programs,

[[Page 19482]]

the anti-crime programs, and that we are essentially going to carve 
those up by at least 20 percent.
  Right now we spend about $1,100 per person to provide those kinds of 
services to the American people. If we can hold the defense budget to 
the level that the President has asked, we will only see under this and 
other bills provided by the majority, we will only see that cut to $780 
per person. That is a huge per-person reduction in services for 
education and health and environmental cleanup and the rest.
  If the Clinton budget numbers for the military budget are not held 
and if in fact we spend more on defense, as this committee has already 
done, then what we are providing by way of those investments per person 
in this country will drop from over $1,100 per person to just over $600 
per person.
  Does anybody really believe that this Congress is going to make those 
kinds of cuts? That is a false promise, that is a phony promise, and I 
do not think we ought to be making promises this institution does not 
have any intention of keeping.
  That is why this bill is going to be vetoed by the President. This is 
another one of the appropriations bills which is on a short route to 
nowhere.
  I would remind you, we have only 18 legislative days left before the 
beginning of the next fiscal year. We need to have our work done. This 
is going to delay our ability to get our work done. That is why I think 
we ought to vote against the bill on final passage.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a very hard 
working Member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Commerce, 
Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill for this next fiscal 
year.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of our 
subcommittee, has worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to 
craft a bill that I think properly reflects this Congress' priorities, 
particularly in the area of law enforcement.
  Each year there are new and greater challenges confronting law 
enforcement officials throughout this Nation. In order to be 
successful, Federal, State and local law enforcement need to work 
together in a coordinated effort to combat criminals that are 
increasingly better organized, more lethal and more technologically 
advanced.
  To assist local law enforcement in every Members' districts, this 
bill once again provides $523 million in local law enforcement block 
grants that the administration, again this year, tried to eliminate in 
its budget submissions.
  In my home State of Iowa, like many States throughout the Midwest and 
the West, it has become inundated with the methamphetamine production 
and trafficking. In fact, the tri-state Siouxland region of Iowa, 
Nebraska, and South Dakota has become the meth distribution center of 
the country, where the drug costs up to $30,000 a kilo.
  According to DEA officials, more than 20 Mexican organizations run 
operations in this region and supply 90 percent of Iowa's meth. This is 
no happenstance. These people actually sat down, set up a marketing 
plan in the U.S., targeted the upper Midwest, and are executing this 
marketing plan with this poison to our families and our children.
  Mr. Chairman, even though we have the cartels active in the area, 
domestic producers are also a very significant problem. In 1994, Iowa 
law enforcement officials seized one clandestine meth lab. In 1996, it 
had risen to 10. Despite the increased awareness of the problem, this 
year in Iowa we will have over 300 meth labs seized in the State.
  The bill before us today provides greater resources for the DEA to 
focus on the meth epidemic in America's heartland. The DEA is funded at 
more than $1.2 billion, which includes funds targeted at meth 
production and trafficking, and funding is provided to assist small 
communities in my district and throughout rural America with the 
expensive and technologically challenging removal of hazardous waste 
generated from clandestine meth lab sites.
  The bill directs $35 million in resources to local law enforcement in 
the war on meth, to the COPS Meth Drug Hot Spots Program. Included in 
this funding is the innovative tri-state meth training center in Sioux 
City, Iowa, which provides police officers in rural areas with training 
and comprehensive counter-drug operations that their communities would 
not be able to afford or have access to.
  Continuing our efforts to stem the flow of illegal aliens, this bill 
once again provides funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents.
  I would like to take the remainder of my time to thank the chairman, 
who has done a fantastic job and been so responsive to the needs of 
rural America, and I think for this entire country in his outstanding 
efforts as far as law enforcement, and also thank the ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). It has been a pleasure to 
work with you in your first year on the committee. I look forward to 
working together very, very closely in conference and to get a bill 
that passes with an overwhelming vote.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, timeliness is critical to the census. The 
Census Bureau needs full funding on October 1st. Delay will irrevocably 
degrade the accuracy of the count. A lot of work has been done to make 
the census better than previous ones. I know the problems of 1990, I 
went through the process with a number of us here, and I do not want to 
see them repeated again.
  Without timely funding, the advertisements for the awareness campaign 
will not be aired when people will hear them; they will be aired at 3 
in the morning when nobody is listening. That is what happened during 
1990 when we missed 8.4 million people and double-counted another 4.4 
million. The Bureau needs to screen and hire and train hundreds of 
thousands of workers for its 520 offices and 12 regional centers. 
Without timely funding, staffing and operations of those offices will 
be delayed, and that will compromise the quality and the accuracy of 
the census.
  Without timely funding, the work of local governments in developing 
the critical address lists will be crippled. If those address lists are 
not complete, we will miss large numbers of people and vital 
information that is needed for addressing national and local policies. 
We simply cannot afford to do that again.
  There is an enormous part of this census that depends on the accurate 
and timely execution of the work. That is why timely funding is so 
important.
  Let me just add one final note. There appears to be a 
misunderstanding about the 2000 census plan. There will not be two 
censuses, there will be one, starting with the direct count using the 
mail and the follow-up visits, two operations for which the Bureau has 
prepared since its first unveiling of its 2000 plan in 1996.
  Next there will be a large 300,000 household quality check survey to 
account for people missed and to eliminate double counting. The need to 
visit all unresponsive households and the addition of several field 
canvassing activities, unfortunately, are the most costly, labor 
intensive, and time-consuming aspects of the census. That is why it is 
important that it be done on time.
  It is one census with one count using both direct and statistical 
methods. The census planning a sample quality check operation like the 
survey first proposed, but at a lower cost.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman satisfied that in this 
bill we

[[Page 19483]]

adequately fund the census in order for the census to be maintained and 
conducted appropriately?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, the critical question is whether or not 
what we have done in the House will meet timely resolution with what is 
being done in the Senate, and whether or not the rest of the bill can 
withstand administration scrutiny. That is what is at stake. It is not 
the quality of the work that has been done by the gentleman from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the question is, is there enough money in 
the bill to do the census?
  Mr. SAWYER. I believe there is, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), a very hard working member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to say that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member and the staff have done an excellent job under the constraints 
that were put on the subcommittee in terms of the amount available.
  Mr. Chairman, this funds a very diverse range of projects. I would 
just like to address a couple of them that I think are very important. 
But first, I would mention embassy security and additional Border 
Patrol agents. Those are certainly two items that needed additional 
funding and received it.
  The two I want to mention, one is the JASON program and the other is 
our trade functions. The bill provides an additional $1 million in 
funding over last year's base for the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office, because this is a very important function in terms of opening 
up markets for U.S. goods. I think Ambassador Barshefsky has done an 
outstanding job as the USTR and has been very aggressive in getting 
markets open to U.S. products, and I am pleased that we can not only 
support them with last year's numbers, but add $1 million to their 
budget.
  The second item under the trade issue is the ITA, the International 
Trade Administration. They too, as part of the Commerce Department, 
have continued with the important programs, including the Import 
Administration, which enforces our U.S. trade laws. We have had a 
number of cases in which they have ruled in favor of American goods to 
prevent unfair trade practices and dumping into our market and taking 
jobs away from American workers. Those two things, opening foreing 
markets and protecting U.S. jobs against unfair trading practices, are 
critical to the expansion of our economy and the job base and 
maintaining well-paying jobs.
  The other item is the JASON project. This is an exciting program. 
JASON is pioneering in terms of interactive TV. This is the way in 
which a classroom in Ohio or Kentucky or New York can take the 
electronic school bus to sites all over the world. Thus far, JASON has 
taken students to the Yellowstone National Park and compared the 
thermals there, with thermals in Iceland. They have taken students to 
the bottom of Monterey Bay. They have taken students to the rain forest 
in Brazil. So students in a classroom, in our case in Ohio, could 
interact through the medium of TV to talk to these people in Monterrey 
Bay or in the rain forest.
  This is an exciting program, and I think it is going to be the 
future. I can see when the agencies around this city, the National 
Gallery, the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, the Holocaust Museum will 
be doing a lot of this type of work with classrooms throughout the 
Nation. We provide $2 million for the JASON program. Next year they 
hope to take students into outer space and deep sea laboratories and 
juxtaposite the outer space with the deep sea laboratories in one 
program, so students can compare what is not only happening up in 
space, but what is happening on inner space, namely the bottoms of the 
oceans or in the deep sea areas.
  So it is a great project. I am pleased that we have the funding for 
this in the bill. This is the third year, and I believe it is a 
pioneering effort that will bring great benefits to the education 
programs of this Nation.
  I would like to commend the Chairman for putting together a bill 
under very difficult circumstances this year.
  The Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill contains many 
diverse functions from Federal law enforcement programs, to trade 
negotiation and enforcement programs, to diplomatic functions, to the 
funding of our Federal Judiciary.
  Under the tight funding caps, an effort was made to keep most 
programs and agencies at last year's levels so that no program or 
personnel reductions would be necessary. There are program enhancements 
to ensure embassy security and to provide additional border patrol 
agents, in addition to the funding needed to do the enhanced Census 
work required by the recent Supreme Court decision.
  I would like to discuss two issues of particular interest to me--
funding for our national trade functions and funding for an innovative 
educational partnership with the JASON program.
  The bill provides an additional $1 million in funding over last 
year's base for the U.S. Trade Representative's office so that the 
important work of opening foreign markets for U.S. goods is continued. 
The U.S. market remains the most open market in the world and it is 
critical that we ensure that other nations reciprocate by opening their 
markets to U.S. goods.
  The Commerce Department also contains important trade functions 
within the International Trade Administration (ITA). The bill provides 
funding sufficient to continue the important program within ITA 
including the Import Administration which enforces our U.S. trade laws 
against unfair foreign imports. Also with ITA is the U.S. Foreign 
Commercial Service which provides technical and practical assistance to 
help U.S. companies enter foreign markets.
  Expanding markets for U.S. goods and protecting domestic industries 
against unfair foreign imports are two important functions of our 
Federal Government. These functions are critical to ensure a level 
playing field in the global marketplace and to maintain well-paying 
jobs for American workers.
  The bill also provides $2 million to continue the exciting 
educational partnership that has developed between the JASON program 
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 
partnership allows Federal research on oceans to be used in the 
interactive educational JASON program. This program seeks to excite our 
elementary, junior high and high school students into pursuing careers 
in the sciences.
  Next year the students will be studying ``extreme environments'' 
focusing on outer space and deep sea laboratories and comparing the 
science related to both of these environments.
  Every year after studying the course materials, the students take the 
electronic school bus on a virtual scientific expedition using 
interactive communications technology. This innovative program 
represents the future of our education system.
  I urge members to support the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce, Justice, 
State Appropriations bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I thank my 
ranking member for allowing me this time.
  I rise today in opposition to this bill. I do not think this bill 
reflects our national priorities. I am concerned about this bill's 
commitment to reducing crime. This bill virtually eliminates the COPS 
program, which is the community policing program, despite the fact that 
law enforcement groups all over the country strongly support it. It is 
no accident that the national crime rate is at its lowest that it has 
been for 25 years. We can credit the drop in crime to strong local 
efforts, in partnership with the Federal Government. The COPS program 
has been a critical part of that partnership. Yet, this bill decimates 
COPS.
  The COPS program has funded positions for 100,000 officers across the 
Nation, 50,000 of which are out on the beat right now, and the rest are 
being trained and certified. But what I do not understand is when we 
are enjoying unmitigated success in reducing the crime rate, why would 
we now choose this time to change our tactics? My local police officers 
support the COPS program, my county officials support this program, my 
neighbors support this program, and so do I.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).

[[Page 19484]]


  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with very serious concerns about this 
legislation. Despite all of the rhetoric about being tough on crime, 
this bill cuts the program to put 100,000 police officers on the street 
by $1 billion. Despite all of the rhetoric by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle just last night about needing stronger science 
before instituting new regulations, this bill would make extensive cuts 
in science and technology programs.
  Despite our nearly unanimous claims that we support small business, 
this bill cuts SBA funding to a level that could lead to the 
elimination of up to 75 percent of current staff.
  And, here is the topper. Despite 200 years of advance warning on the 
need for conducting a census next year, this bill designates the 
decennial census as ``emergency spending.'' It does all of this at a 
time when Members of this body are finalizing a package of tax cuts 
totaling $792 billion that the people do not think is needed, when they 
think we really ought to be working on balancing the budget and 
reducing the debt.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a cynical, desperate approach to continue this 
appearance of this Congress is balancing its budget by staying in the 
caps while in reality, spending the surplus on tax breaks.
  Now, that being said, I do want to point out one area where we do 
agree, and that has to do with funding for methamphetamine programs. 
The other body provided less money, and I am grateful that this 
committee has chosen to include the full thirty-five million dollars 
requested by the President for the state and local methamphetamine 
grant program at the Department of Justice. But here is the problem. We 
need more.
  In my home State of Washington, the number of methamphetamine labs 
has increased by 400 percent in the first 6 months of 1999, a 400 
percent increase. Methamphetamine is produced oftentimes in clandestine 
labs and oftentimes in our rural communities. This leads to huge 
problems in cleaning up the hazardous sites and, of course, in the use 
of the material itself. So far this year, the Washington State 
Department of Ecology has already identified 322 labs and dump sites, 
nearly passing the 349 that were identified in all of 1998.
  Law enforcement officials know of this problem. We need to fully 
support funding to solve this problem, and I will work with this 
committee to make sure we increase funding for methamphetamine 
treatment and prevention.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), who is a member of our subcommittee, but 
incidentally and coincidentally is chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Census of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to serve 
with the gentleman this year on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies and to bring this 
appropriations bill to the floor today, which I very strongly support.
  The Republican leadership of this House has always made a commitment 
to the American people that we will provide the resources needed by the 
Census Bureau to conduct a full enumeration in accordance with the 
Constitution and the law, and we have provided that in a timely manner.
  Today, this Congress will fulfill that commitment, and we provide 
every dollar requested by the Census Bureau for the decennial census.
  I would for a minute like to explain how we got to this point today. 
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that the 
cost of the census has increased by $1.7 billion because of the 
Republican court challenge, nothing could be further from the truth. We 
took the administration to court because we believe that the plan they 
were putting forward violated the law and the Constitution. To be 
intellectually honest, any additional costs associated with the census 
are because of the original plan put forth by the administration was in 
violation of the law, and that is the truth, plain and simple.
  It is also important that we take into account what the cost would 
have been had the administration's illegal plan not been challenged in 
a timely manner. There was a real chance that the entire 2000 Census 
could have been voided by the Supreme Court. This could have forced us 
to hold up reapportionment and redistricting to allow the Census Bureau 
time to conduct an emergency census at a cost of billions and billions 
of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure every Member of this body, regardless of how 
they feel about sampling, is at least gratified that we found out now 
and not later that the Clinton-Gore plan was illegal. There is no doubt 
that it will always cost more to be thorough and accurate than it does 
to cut corners and take a risky short cut.
  While some are critical of the mechanism being used to fund the 
census, it seems to me that the most important thing is that we are 
paying for the census to be done correctly. Republicans have always 
given the Census Bureau the money it needs. In fact, in each of the 
appropriation bills for the past several years, we have given the 
Census Bureau more money than the administration has requested. In 
fact, this fiscal year 1999, we gave the Bureau almost $180 million 
more than requested by the administration. The Republicans made a 
promise to pay a full count census, and today, we are fulfilling that 
promise. Promise made, promise kept.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, no matter what we do, we must 
fund the decennial census, and we have to stop putting the census in 
jeopardy. The Census Bureau needs full funding by October 1. The 
administration has requested $4.5 billion in order to count everyone in 
America. The bill before us contains all but about $11 million of that 
request, and I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census of the 
Committee on Government Reform for providing that money.
  Almost as important, this bill contains none of the onerous language 
prohibiting the use of modern scientific methods which has been in 
previous Commerce-Justice-State funding bills that have held up two 
budgets and led to one presidential veto of a disaster relief bill 
because of the antisampling language attached to it.
  The Census Bureau plans to use such methods to conduct a quality 
check on the raw census field counts. These more accurate numbers can 
and will be used for nonapportionment purposes like redistricting and 
the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funds.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been debating the census for an entire decade. 
No one should be surprised. But Congress failed to allow for the census 
in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and now, we find ourselves in the 
embarrassing situation of declaring the census unanticipated. This is 
not an emergency. We have done the census every 10 years since 1790. 
The majority is about to put together and pass a huge tax cut. They 
should pay for the census out of that, rather than resorting to an 
accounting trick and declaring it an emergency.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, 
the question was raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) about timing on October 1. As 
I have said in the past, I will work

[[Page 19485]]

with the chairman and the leadership to make sure the funding is going 
to be there on October 1 if a CR, which happens historically, on this 
bill is necessary. Because I agree and I understand the problem, and as 
we have in the past, we have always worked to make sure that money 
flows.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the 
gentleman knows better than most people, the tight time frame that the 
Census Bureau is on, all that needs to be done, and it is very strictly 
marked down on a tight time frame.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) has again expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 additional seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, what bothers me is if the 
bill is vetoed, as the President has said he will do, then that will 
put in jeopardy the time frame of getting the money to the Census 
Bureau on time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee on crafting a bill 
which I feel is extremely fair under the circumstances. Given this, I 
know that funding any new initiatives or requested increases was all 
but impossible. However, there are three key programs which are vitally 
important that I would like to continue to work together on as the bill 
moves through conference.
  The administration requested funding for a Pacific Salmon Recovery 
Fund which would assist the four West Coast States of Alaska, 
Washington, Oregon, and California, and help them respond to the recent 
Endangered Species Act listings of 13 salmon and steelhead populations.
  Our region has been extremely hard hit by these listings, and is 
responding with both local and State money, but the Federal money 
requested by the administration is imperative, given the complexity of 
this species and the densely populated areas they impact.
  Related to the coastal initiative, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service has requested an increase for expanded workload on the West 
Coast for Endangered Species Act requirements. Without the necessary 
consultation and permitting, routine growth in our region will come to 
a standstill.
  Lastly, the United States and Canada recently reached agreement on 
the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which sets harvest restrictions and 
conservation measures between the two countries. To implement this 
agreement, the administration has requested appropriations for two 
endowment funds to assist with resource conservation and targeted 
buybacks.
  Given the importance of this treaty in addressing over-harvest, I 
remain optimistic that this, too, may be revisited.
  It is my strong hope that the gentleman can agree to continue to work 
with me on these issues as the bill proceeds in conference. I would be 
happy to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to work with the gentleman, Mr. 
Chairman. I know how important the gentleman feels this is to his State 
and region. We will be happy to continue to work with him.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman. I commend him for his work on the 
bill.
  I want to compliment the ranking member, who has also promised he 
would work with us on this important issue.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington 
for bringing such an important issue to the forefront of the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of efforts to provide much-needed 
resources to the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund. This fund will 
help local efforts in Oregon, and across the Pacific Northwest, to 
restore native salmon runs.
  I also want to commend Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Washington 
Governor Gary Locke for their hard work and interstate cooperation on 
this issue.
  Salmon are a cultural icon in the Pacific Northwest; indeed, they are 
part of our identify. But salmon are also a national treasure, and more 
importantly, they are an indicator species. Like the canary in the coal 
mine, the health of salmon tell us volumes about how clean and safe our 
rivers and streams are.
  Steep declines in Northwest salmon have led to several species 
listings under the Endangered Species Act. The four H's which have 
contributed to the consistent decline of salmon are habitat, 
hatcheries, hydro and harvest: Only by making sound investments in the 
programs that address these four H's, will we be able to bring salmon 
back.
  The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, which was included in the 
President's Budget at a level of $100 million, will support local 
initiatives to save salmon. It will help give states the ability to 
improve habitat, and bring salmon back. The Pacific Coast Salmon 
Recovery Fund will help local communities continue efforts such as mass 
marking, which help commercial and sport fisherman determine the 
difference between habitat fish and wild fish. Mass marking can reduce 
the amount of wild fish that are mistakenly taken and thus continue 
economic stability by harvesting hatchery fish. Finally, the Pacific 
Salmon Recovery fund could help local communities build Fish ladders, 
purchase fish friendly turbines and continue with mitigation around 
dams.
  These are just a few examples of important initiatives that people in 
Oregon and the Northwest have taken upon themselves to restore salmon. 
All of these local initiatives are in desperate need of federal help.
  Several species of salmon are on the verge of extinction, and we now 
find ourselves with a choice to make. Are we going to honor the 
commitments we have made to our children? Will they have the chance to 
enjoy clean water and healthy streams in the future? Will they inherit 
a healthy ecosystem that includes indigenous salmon? Or are we going to 
stand idly by and let salmon vanish?
  By funding the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, we can continue 
the process of helping coastal states recovery salmon. I want to work 
with my friend from Washington, Mr. Dicks, and the entire subcommittee 
to help ensure that the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund is funded at 
the maximum possible level, and that Oregon gets its fair share.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to praise the gentleman for the excellent 
work that he has done on this bill.
  With that, and saying that I am opposed to the bill, I will lay out 
the reasons why I am opposed to the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriation bill.
  It is my view in this effort that in order for the Republican 
leadership to fund a massive tax cut, that this bill will ultimately do 
harm to the most vulnerable people in our society, to minorities and to 
communities attempting to make their streets safe. This bill cuts in 
half the funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which is the 
Republican leadership's attempt to phase out this program.
  It zeros out the hiring portion of the COPS program, meaning 50,000 
fewer police officers will be on our streets. This bill freezes the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which will hinder the agency's 
efforts to reduce the backlog of discrimination complaints.
  Funding for the Civil Rights Division under Justice is so low that it 
will tie the hands of investigators looking into prosecuting criminal 
civil rights cases, including hate crimes. The list goes on. The bill 
eliminates the Advanced Technology Program in order to pick a fight 
with the administration. It decimates funding for the Small Business 
Administration's work force, causing a reduction in force of more than 
2,400 Federal employees, or 74 percent of the SBA's work force.
  It eliminates the entire $20 million to help the Justice Department 
initiate litigation against the big tobacco companies in order to 
recover Federal costs

[[Page 19486]]

for smoking-related illnesses. It freezes State Department funds.
  It pretends to deal with U.N. arrearages, but makes them subject to 
authorization, so if the authorizing bill gets held up, the U.S. could 
lose its voting rights in the General Assembly. It guts the NOAA and 
the National Weather Service.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we ought not to vote to gut legal 
services, to gut civil rights, our police forces, or the Small Business 
Administration, or research on advanced technology. Vote no on the 
Commerce-State-Justice appropriation bill because I believe that it has 
America's priorities upside down.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Meeks), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for including report 
language recognizing the tragic killing of Amadou Diallo in the Bronx, 
New York, in the gentleman's district. However, I still feel the need 
for additional report language regarding police brutality.
  In the committee report's section dealing with the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, the committee directs BGS to implement a voluntary annual 
reporting system of all deaths in law enforcement custody, and to 
provide a report to the committee on its progress no later than July 1, 
2000.
  Although this is a start in addressing this problem, I ask for report 
language that instructs the Attorney General to do three things: 
Evaluate and collect data in regard to police brutality; not later than 
September 15, 2000, to report the findings; and third and most 
importantly, make recommendations to Congress regarding effective 
strategies to combat such brutal acts.
  It is not enough for a statistical report to be issued like the one I 
have in my hand. We need recommendations to solve this problem, and we 
need to work hand in hand with the Attorney General.
  I just ask the gentleman, will he help to work on that to make sure 
it is in the reporting language?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for his concern. Mr. Chairman, we 
have worked together on this issue. This is a very serious issue, to 
the point where the gentleman and I gave ourselves up for arrest during 
demonstrations that took place in New York. We did not do that lightly. 
We took that very seriously at this stage in our development as human 
beings, and at this stage in our careers.
  I give the gentleman my word that on the way to passage and signature 
of this bill, to approval by the President, I will do whatever I have 
to do to see that we make changes in the language that will fit the 
gentleman's request and our desire.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I 
appreciate his hard work.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted once again to thank the gentleman, my 
chairman, for his work, and for the way he has treated me in these 
dealings. I have made it clear to the chairman that this is a very 
difficult bill; one, however, that I personally support, and I will try 
in my support of this bill to send the chairman and the majority a 
message that I stand ready, willing, and able to work with them to make 
this bill a better bill.
  However, I have to state that with the problems that this bill has, 
it still does have a very positive statement about the Census, one that 
I support, one that I know is necessary, and one that I thank the 
chairman for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close with thanking the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano). As I said, he is a new member of the subcommittee, as 
well as being the new ranking member of the subcommittee, and that is a 
heavy chore dumped in his lap overnight. But he has carried it out 
admirably and with good humor. He makes the heaviest of tasks a lot 
lighter because of his sense of humor and his joy, and he is a joy to 
work with.
  I appreciate very much the work that he has done on this bill with us 
all year long. He has attended every hearing, and I think we had 23 or 
so hearings covering a broad expanse of the government. But the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) educated himself on those matters 
as the hearings came up, and participated brilliantly, and he has been 
a real asset. I mean that sincerely, and I appreciate his work.
  I appreciate his support for the bill. That takes a good deal of 
courage, and I really appreciate that kind of commitment.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, Webster's dictionary defines the word 
emergency as, ``an unforseen combination of circumstances or the 
resulting state that calls for immediate action.'' In the past, 
Congress has passed emergency spending legislation to address pressing 
needs resulting from natural disasters, wars or other unforseen crisis. 
But today, the House will consider legislation to expand the definition 
of ``emergency'' to fund, of all things, the census.
  Now, maybe I'm just naive. Or maybe I just don't get it. But from 
what I understand, the federal government has been conducting the 
census every ten years since 1790. In fact, the authority of Congress 
to do so is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Over 200 years 
later, how can anyone with a straight face really say that census 
funding is something unforseen--an emergency?
  If funding for the census is truly an emergency, what is not? What 
about the Departments of Treasury, Justice or State? Like the census, 
these are a core responsibility of the federal government. Should we 
use emergency spending to fund these departments? Where does it end?
  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Congress has used emergency 
spending to bypass spending limits. The Omnibus spending bill passed 
last year contained about $20 billion in speciously classified 
emergency spending. I voted against that bill for the same reason that 
I will oppose this legislation today--because it is fiscally 
irresponsible.
  It's time to end this charade. We impose budget caps for a very 
simple reason--to control spending. If we are not willing to respect 
those caps, let's not use a bunch of fancy budget gimmickry and smoke 
and mirrors to fool the American people into believing that we are. 
Let's have an honest vote--up or down--on whether or not we are willing 
to abide by the agreement we passed in 1997. At least that way, the 
American people will know who is serious about controlling spending and 
who is not.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Coburn Amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the 
distinguished Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
Subcommittee, the Ranking Member, and all members of the Subcommittee 
for the inclusion of a $500,000 appropriation for planning and site 
money for a Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) detention 
center in Grand Island, Nebraska.
  Unfortunately, the national INS office has been slow to respond to 
the urgent need for enhanced enforcement, including additional 
detention facilities, in the interior. Various economic and geographic 
circumstances are attracting large numbers of illegal aliens to 
Nebraska and other interior states. In response, INS launched 
enforcement initiatives in Nebraska and along the Interstate 80 
corridor. However, INS does not currently have detention facilities in 
our state to house illegal aliens. That's why I am pleased the Chairman 
recognizes the importance of locating a detention facility in my 
district, Nebraska.
  In closing, I want to once again express my appreciation to the 
Chairman for his attention to Nebraska's concerns and his efforts 
toward improving INS administration, enforcement, and service.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support 
of the FY2000 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations 
bill for FY2000. Approving this legislation would provide $585 million 
in funds for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).
  SCAAP was established as a way to reimburse state and local 
governments for the costs of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens. 
These funds are distributed at the discretion of

[[Page 19487]]

the Department of Justice to those states most afflicted by this 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, California shoulders approximately half the costs 
associated with criminal aliens in the entire nation. It is clear to me 
that at both the State and Federal level for the containment of those 
criminals are staggering and should not be made the responsibility of 
the California taxpayer alone.
  Mr. Chairman, illegal immigration is a problem the Federal government 
should be addressing. Neither California nor any other state should be 
made liable for the federal government's failure to restrict the entry 
of illegal immigrants. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2670, 
the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations bill contains a number of provisions of importance to 
the people of my district. Two National Weather Service (NWS) programs 
in particular are of critical importance: the funding level for the 
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) Build 5, and the 
reductions in base operations dollars. I would ask that the Members of 
the conference committee support these critical programs during 
conference.
  AWIPS is a key component of the National Weather Service multiyear, 
multi-billion dollar modernization effort. AWIPS capabilities have 
enabled NWS forecasters throughout the country to provide more timely, 
accurate forecasts and warnings to the American people. The capability 
of this new technology was most recently demonstrated during the May 
tornado outbreak in Oklahoma and Kansas. The investment of new 
technology, as represented by AWIPS, has saved lives.
  Funding AWIPS Build 5 is crucial to the continuing success of NWS 
modernization. Longer lead times for severe weather warnings is but one 
example of the many benefits of the Build 5 program. An increase of as 
little as 4 minutes of lead time can mean the difference between life 
and death for people in the path of a tornado. I hope the Conference 
committee Members will also support this initiative.
  NWS base operations funds provide the wherewithal to staff the 
offices, analyze the data, gather the time critical information needed 
to produce the warnings and forecasts on which all Americans rely. The 
NWS is committed to becoming a ``No Surprise'' weather service, and the 
key to accomplishing that goal is a combination of the latest 
technology coupled with sufficient personnel to operate and understand 
it. Cuts to base funds cut bone, not fat, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask 
the members to the conference committee to remember that as this 
legislation proceeds to conference.
   Mr. Chairman, the NWS is a critical federal agency. The work of the 
men and women at offices across the country affects each and every one 
of use every single day, twenty-four hours a day. Let's give them the 
resources needed--both in terms of personnel and technology--to 
continue to do the tremendous job, which we have become accustomed.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the effort this 
bill represents to increase security at America's embassies around the 
world. I have seen my share of our embassies, and know the Americans 
and national employees who work there to be courageous people who are 
committed to their work, and who deserve the support of this Congress 
and our State Department.
  I comment Chairman Rogers and Mr. Serrano for their work on this 
bill, and for their commitment to see that we do everything in our 
power to deter attacks like those on two of our embassies last year--
and that no future attack, if one occurs, produces such carnage.
  I particularly appreciate their efforts to see that the situation at 
our embassy in Cambodia is addressed. As I have told the Committee, the 
State Department, and others, I recently visited Cambodia and was 
shocked to see how exposed it is to almost any threat. The building is 
virtually on top of a busy street, with no setback, and is shared with 
non-embassy organizations. It would not take a bomb to do severe 
damage; even a hand grenade tossed from the street would certainly kill 
Americans and Cambodians who work there.
  Mr. Chairman, after 30 years of civil war Cambodia is now achieving 
peace. But while there is no longer the threat of war, the country is 
far from stable; street violence and public unrest had been common 
until recent months and the U.S. embassy was one site of Chinese 
demonstrations after the United States mistakenly bombed Beijing's 
embassy in Belgrade.
  I appreciate that the Committee does not want to list which embassies 
are vulnerable in report language that it traditionally uses to give 
direction to government officials. But I want to thank the Committee's 
members for whatever they can do to get the State Department to do 
something to make Embassy Phnom Penh safer.
  In my view, too much attention is being focused on a few Cadillac 
solutions that turn a handful of embassies into impenetrable 
fortresses--but leave all the rest not a whit safer. I think money 
invested in relocating our embassy in Cambodia, as our outgoing 
ambassador has suggested, would be money well spent, and I hope the 
Committee and its staff will keep pressing until we get a solution that 
is more responsible than the State Department's suggestion to our 
ambassador that he move the embassy to another country.
  I am hopeful about the United States' relations with Cambodia, and 
believe we now have an unusual opportunity to help close the door on 
the wars and genocide that have devastated it for 30 years. Many 
hurdles remain to helping its suffering people, but few of them could 
set back U.S. policy as an attack on our embassy could--even if, by 
some miracle given the building's situation, no one was hurt.
  Mr. Chairman, I will continue to urge this Administration to look for 
an immediate remedy to this disaster-waiting-to-happen. Not only is 
that essential to the safety of some of the hardest-working foreign 
service officers I have met during my many years of focusing on 
humanitarian issues; it is also important for our efforts to aid some 
of the poorest people in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, my thanks again to the Committee for its achievement in 
providing money needed to secure America's embassies.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on H.R. 
2670, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations 
Act of 1999. This bill contains funding for the Department of 
Commerce's (DOC) Science and Technology programs as well as legislative 
guidance on some key project management issues at the Department of 
Commerce.
  In May of this year, the Committee on Science passed H.R. 1552, the 
Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development 
Programs Authorization Act of 1999, and H.R. 1553, the National Weather 
Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 1553 has 
since passed the House on May 19th and awaits Senate action.
  In H.R. 2670, NOAA is funded at $1,959,838,000 and contains transfers 
of $67,226,000. Within this amount, the National Weather Service (NWS) 
is funded at $599,196,000, which is a 7% increase over the FY 1999 
enacted. Chairman Rogers noted that the NWS is the highest priority 
within NOAA and I concur with his comments. The protection of our 
citizens' life and property from severe weather must be NOAA's highest 
priority.
  This bill funds the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at 
NOAA at a level of $260,560,000. I concur with Chairman Rogers' 
assessment that this office should not be funding duplicative social-
science and human dimensions research, and should fund hard 
computational science that has real benefit to the American taxpayer. 
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has a social science program area 
that is capable of making these assessments and I consider social 
science research at NOAA to be a low research priority.
  I am pleased that the National Sea Grant College Program is funded at 
$58,500,000, which is $7,000,000 above the President's request. Sea 
Grant's cost-sharing approach with states provides greater bang for the 
research buck and in tight fiscal times it is the best way to stretch 
research dollars.
  Finally, I am extremely gratified that Chairman Rogers decided not to 
fund the Fisheries Research Vessels that were in the NOAA request. The 
Commerce Inspector General and the Government Accounting Office have 
pointed out time and time again the need for outsourcing NOAA fleet 
operations. While NOAA is making some progress in the oceanographic and 
hydrographic outsourcing areas, there is little to no progress in the 
fisheries research area. I urge NOAA to examine the use of UNOLS 
vessels to support fisheries research. NOAA should closely examine the 
Dorman report which pointed out that the need for these ships is 
questionable.
  H.R. 2670 funds the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) at $436,686,000 for FY 2000. This amount is $300,270,000 below 
the President's request and $210,464,000 below the FY 1999 enacted 
amount.
  The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at NIST is terminated in H.R. 
2670. As I have stated in the past, until fundamental reforms are made 
to ATP that will ensure that federal grant funding is not simply 
displacing private capital investment, I do not think the program 
should be funded. The Science Committee and the full House passed just 
such structural changes to the program last year, but unfortunately the 
Senate did not act on them. The

[[Page 19488]]

changes would not only prevent the displacement of private capital, but 
would increase private sector matching requirements for the program. 
Congresswoman Morella has once again introduced legislation, H.R. 1744, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 
1999, to fix the problem and authorize ATP. I am hopeful that this time 
the bill will be enacted.
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at NIST is funded at a 
level of $99,836,000 in H.R. 2670. I am pleased that the bill fully 
funds MEP at the President's.
  Finally, the construction account at NIST is funded at $56,714,000 
for FY 2000. This will provide $44,916,000 of the required funds for 
the Advanced Measurements Laboratory. Unfortunately, funding AML at 
this level will not allow NIST to begin construction of the project 
during FY 2000. The AML is necessary due to the precise measurements 
required for establishing standards associated with today's 
increasingly complex technologies. It is my hope that additional 
funding may become available during the Conference to allow 
construction of AML to begin during Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments printed in House Report 106-284 may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a 
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 5 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $79,328,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43 
     permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $8,136,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership 
     Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these 
     offices in fiscal year 1999: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 41 permanent positions and 48 full-time equivalent 
     workyears and $4,811,000 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 Attorney General 
     is authorized to transfer, under such terms and conditions as 
     the Attorney General shall specify, forfeited real or 
     personal property of limited or marginal value, as such value 
     is determined by guidelines established by the Attorney 
     General, to a State or local government agency, or its 
     designated contractor or transferee, for use to support drug 
     abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education, 
     housing, job skills, and other community-based public health 
     and safety programs: Provided further, That any transfer 
     under the preceding proviso shall not create or confer any 
     private right of action in any person against the United 
     States, and shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 
     605 of this Act.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I appreciate all the hard work 
that the gentleman and his committee have done on this measure.
  As the chairman knows, the recent listings of the nine salmon and 
steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest as endangered has resulted in 
substantial delays in the processing of jeopardy reviews under the 
Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  This backlog has already caused important local transportation 
projects to be delayed, and has even put Federal highway funding for 
some of these projects at risk of expiring.
  In some cases, such as the replacement of traffic lights in Richland, 
Washington, these projects have no discernible impact on endangered 
species. I know the gentleman shares my support for the measures, which 
will reduce this backlog within existing resources. The NMFS has 
previously entered into cooperative agreements with State agencies to 
use State employees to process these reviews more quickly.
  Will the chairman work with me to encourage NMFS to continue these 
efforts to reduce delays without increasing the number of NMFS 
employees?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this to 
our attention. I certainly share the gentleman's concern about these 
delays. As the gentleman knows, the committee was forced to make some 
very difficult decisions in this bill. Where steps can be taken to 
address these problems without additional Federal funding, I am eager 
to see them taken, and will assist the gentleman in that.
  I will be very pleased to work with the gentleman to encourage NMFS 
to modify this matter in that direction.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman, and I look forward 
to working with the chairman on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). 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.


               telecommunications carrier compliance fund

       For payments authorized by section 109 of the 
     Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 
     1008), $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                   administrative review and appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration related activities, 
     $84,200,000.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask permission of the Chair and of my 
esteemed colleague and chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary if he would engage in a brief colloquy 
with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's longstanding support of 
the laboratory programs and the research facilities at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST. As the gentleman 
knows, NIST's unique mission of promoting our Nation's competitiveness 
requires world-class state-of-the-art facilities to provide precise 
measurements for today's increasingly complex technologies.
  As a result, an expedited NIST construction of the Advanced 
Measurement Laboratory has been an important goal for both my 
Subcommittee on Technology and, indeed, the gentleman's subcommittee. 
Over the past 2

[[Page 19489]]

years the Committee on Appropriations has supported the AML, 
appropriating well over half the total needed to complete the project.
  But while H.R. 2670 includes $44 million for the AML, that is not 
enough to begin construction in fiscal year 2000.

                              {time}  1400

  So while I appreciate the budget constraints imposed upon the 
Subcommittee, it is my understanding that the Committee is still fully 
committed to the AML construction. I would like to hear from the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Maryland yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Indeed, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. The Committee 
has continued to support the construction of the laboratory within the 
availability of existing resources.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification of the 
gentleman from Kentucky and ongoing support for this. This is really 
important.
  Should additional funds become available in conference with the 
Senate, it is my hope that a portion of those funds can be used to 
begin AML construction in fiscal year 2000.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, $50,363,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                      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, $42,475,000; 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: 
     Provided, That up to two-tenths of one percent of the 
     Department of Justice's allocation from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund grant programs may be transferred at the 
     discretion of the Attorney General to this account for the 
     audit or other review of such grant programs, as authorized 
     by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-322).

                    United States Parole Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized by law, $7,380,000.

                            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, $355,691,000; 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 $18,166,000 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, 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.
       In addition, $147,929,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended for such purposes.
        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 $3,424,000, 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, $57,368,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $57,368,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected in fiscal 
     year 2000 for premerger notification filings under the Hart-
     Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 
     18(a) note) 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 2000, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2000 appropriation from the 
     General Fund estimated at not more than $0.


             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including intergovernmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,161,957,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2001, 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 9,044 positions and 9,360 
     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), $114,248,000, 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, $114,248,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees 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 2000, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2000 appropriation from the Fund estimated 
     at $0: Provided further, That 28 U.S.C. 589a is amended by 
     striking ``and'' in subsection (b)(7); by striking the period 
     in subsection (b)(8) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; 
     and by adding a new paragraph as follows: ``(9) interest 
     earned on Fund investment.''.


      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, $1,175,000.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 12 line 16 be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 9, line 1 through page 12, line 16 is 
as follows:


         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, 
     $329,289,000, 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; 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; and of which 
     not less than $2,762,000 shall be for the costs of conversion 
     to narrowband communications and for the operations and 
     maintenance of legacy Land Mobile Radio systems: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be transferred to and administered by 
     the Department of Justice Wireless Management Office.
       In addition, $209,620,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                              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, $4,600,000, 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

[[Page 19490]]

     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 5 
     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, $525,000,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to 
     remain available until expended.


                     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; and 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.


           salaries and expenses, community relations service

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

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Serrano

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano:
       Page 12, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,000,000)''.
       Page 14, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 18, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $44,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $44,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $32,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.
       Page 72, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 93, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
       Page 94, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $108,110,000)''.
       Page 94, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $890,000)''.

  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, my amendment would increase the 
appropriation for the Legal Services Corporation to $250 million. Of 
this increase, $108 million would be for the LSC's basic field programs 
and required independent audits and $900,000 would bring the Office of 
Inspector General up to the fiscal year 1999 level to assist in 
improving case reporting.
  To offset the increase and assure that the amendment is outlay-
neutral, it would cut $23 million from administration of the Justice 
Department's Asset Forfeiture Fund, $20 million from the FBI's National 
Instant Check System, $32 million from the salaries and expenses of the 
Bureau of Prisons, $24 million from the salaries and expenses of the 
Federal Judiciary, and $10 million from the salaries and expenses of 
the Department of State, and transfers $44 million within the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  These are not easy cuts to make. But each can be justified. The cut 
of 53 percent contained in the bill would virtually abandon our long-
standing Federal commitment to the legal protection of low-income 
Americans, including children, the elderly, and the victims of spousal 
and child abuse, arbitrary government action, and consumer fraud.
  A reduction of the fiscal year 2000 funding level to $141 million 
would result in severe reductions in services to most clients. The 
number of cases closed would fall, and families would actually be 
turned away and denied access to the court. There would be a decrease 
in the number of neighborhood offices resulting in no offices providing 
legal assistance to clients in thousands of counties throughout the 
United States.
  Especially hard hit would be the millions of poor people living in 
rural areas in the South, Southwest, and large parts of the Midwest. 
The number of Legal Services Corporation attorneys serving the poor 
would be drastically reduced with just one LSC lawyer for every 23,600 
poor Americans in the year 2000.
  The Legal Services Corporation, Mr. Chairman, was created in 1974 
with bipartisan sponsorship and signed into law by President Nixon. The 
Legal Services Delivery System is based on several principles: local 
priorities, national accountability, competition for grants, and a 
strong public-private partnership.
  This corporation has been a success with real programs to help low-
income women who are the victims of domestic violence. LSC-funded 
programs have helped millions of children living in poverty by 
providing lawyers who represent children and their parents in civil 
cases, helping them to avoid homelessness, to obtain child support or 
supplemental security income, and to find a safe haven against violence 
in the home.
  Significant services are provided to the elderly who, because of 
their special health, income, and social needs, often require legal 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation provides a valuable, 
even essential, service to the Nation's low-income families that would 
be reduced by the funding level in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to give LSC more 
resources to meet the legal needs of the poor. This is without a doubt 
the most important amendment of the day and one that I know can have 
bipartisan support on behalf of people who need it and on behalf of 
those principles we stand for in this country.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the purported purpose of the 
Legal Services Corporation, which is to help the needy when they have 
problems with an eviction or some other legal action and they do not 
have the financial resources to turn to an attorney and get the legal 
assistance that they need.
  Indeed, that is a purpose for the Legal Services Corporation that I 
believe I support and the vast majority of the Members of this House 
would support. Certainly the people who will rise in opposition to this 
amendment would agree to that, that if that were the purpose, the sole 
purpose of the Legal

[[Page 19491]]

Services Corporation, then there would be unanimous support for the 
Legal Services Corporation, and there would be no call for reducing 
their funding.
  But the fact of the matter is that the Legal Services Corporation has 
engaged in a lot of other legal activity other than what they purport 
to do. Indeed, I believe they file legal briefs challenging our welfare 
reform legislation that this body passed and the President ultimately 
signed, which I believe most Americans today would now say has been a 
fabulous success.
  I could go on and on and list all of the various left-wing causes 
that the Legal Services Corporation has decided to sign up to over the 
years.
  Now, I have had their members come into my office and say we are 
getting away from that, we are going to just strictly apply ourselves 
to the bread and butter issues of helping those poor people with the 
legal representation that they needed.
  Frankly, I had seen a trend in that direction in my State. But now we 
have reported to us by their own IG and the GAO that they have been 
falsifying their records of caseloads for the last I do not know how 
many years, and that they are not actually representing the number of 
people that they are supposed to be representing.
  Indeed, we have been informed that they are actually doing about half 
the amount of work that they have been claiming to the Congress that 
they have been doing.
  I have been here for 5 years now, and this to me has been one of the 
most outrageous misrepresentations of any agency in the 5 years that I 
have been here. I must say it is probably one of the worst in this 
century.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations. They did 
the appropriate thing. The data comes in and says, no, the Legal 
Services Corporation is doing half the amount of work that it is 
supposed to be doing. Therefore, we will cut their appropriation in 
half. We will fund them at the level that they are actually doing.
  Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment. Support the committee mark in this area. It is the right 
thing to do, and it is the right thing to do for all of the working 
people in this country who get up every morning and work very, very 
hard and typically do not have enough money at the end of the week to 
pay all of the bills that they need to pay.
  We are entrusted with the sacred responsibility to be able to take 
the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayers and spend it 
appropriately; and to give an agency that has been falsifying their 
records an amount of money consistent with their falsified volume to me 
is absolutely unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest way to vote against this 
amendment and support the original committee mark in this area.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just come to the floor from a hearing in the 
Committee on Judiciary dealing with the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. As 
I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), although his 
arguments are pertaining to the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) of which I rise to support, and I appreciate his 
distinguished leadership on this issue, the sound is similar.
  For the opponents of the hate crimes legislation were making a number 
of legal arguments, a number of arguments that would question Congress' 
rightness in doing this for fear that it would be difficult to 
prosecute or that the courts would argue or the courts would find this 
law unconstitutional.
  Those of us who profess to support it recognize that the courts may 
have their chance at the legislation. But we also recognize that people 
were dead. James Barrett is dead. Matthew Shepherd is dead. A gay man 
is dead. We realize that the Congress had to act.
  In this instance, I support the Legal Services Corporation because 
poor people should have equal access to legal services. Whether they 
are Indians on America's reservations; whether they are citizens on the 
border in Texas; whether they are African-American single mothers in 
the inner cities of Houston or all over this Nation, we must provide in 
a manner that is responsible and efficient the kinds of services that 
are the privileges of the rich.
  If any of us have ever entered into the halls of a courtroom, and I 
practiced law for a number of years and presided as an associate judge 
for the Municipal Court of the City of Houston, I know the pain of 
those who do not have adequate representation, the pain of those who 
come into a system that is confusing and intimidating. Our legal 
services are officers and attorneys who work in the shadow of poor 
working conditions, poor money as compared to their counterparts in the 
private sector, but they work with compassion and dedication.
  I cannot imagine this Congress opposing the opportunity to say to 
America that, because one is not born with all of the attachments of 
privilege and wealth that one does not have the opportunity to receive 
justice, as I would not want to tell the Jewish person or the black 
person or the Hispanic or the gay or lesbian person that they cannot be 
protected by the laws of this land in a hate crimes act, as we tried to 
tell African Americans in not being for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and the Voter Rights Act of 1965.
  We have a better and a higher calling, and I believe that this 
amendment of the ranking member is a good amendment, a fair amendment, 
and I would ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I practiced law for 27 years. I was a city attorney of 
Pinebluff, Arkansas, for 2 of those years. I saw how the Legal Services 
Corporation was doing a good job in rural America.
  I stayed with this program up until right now. I stayed with it 
because of what the lawyers, my fellow lawyers, were telling me were 
the circumstances. It reminded me of what the circumstances were at 
home.

                             {time}   1415

  But now I can see that people who had other ideas were just using the 
poor people. I would like to see how they, if they were given the case, 
would handle the misrepresentation. In other words, if we went to these 
political activists, if that is what we want to call them, or the 
people that use the poor people to try to get other things done, I 
would like to see what case they would make as to whether or not the 
money we have appropriated over the years, based on their figures, 
should be returned; how they would handle that and what they would call 
it. I think it would be very clear that they would have an excellent 
case.
  We have seen the Legal Services Corporation used for exotic theories 
and almost for law school type circumstances where they say, let us try 
this, let us try this, let us see if we can do this and that, and that 
all comes from idleness. I think the only way to bring the Legal 
Services Corporation back to focusing on poor people and trying to help 
them in their only touch, sometimes, with justice, in the municipal 
courts and smaller claims courts all across the country, is just to 
reduce the size of the appropriations; make them, Mr. Chairman, 
understand what their purpose is and get back to the principles. 
Otherwise, we are going to just promote misrepresentation and 
government bureaucracy, and I think that is a disservice to the poor 
people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with the 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). Our preceding speaker referred to or used the 
metaphor about cooking the books. Well, if somebody is cooking the 
books, we should get new cooks, not go and blow up the kitchen.
  Last year, Legal Services Corporation provided support to 258 local 
agencies in every county and Congressional District in America. That 
support is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people with no other 
means of access to the legal system.

[[Page 19492]]

  Who are these people that rely on Legal Services? Over two-thirds are 
women, and most are mothers with children. They are women, women 
seeking protection against abusive spouses, who oftentimes have their 
personal safety at risk along with the personal safety of their 
children. They are children living in poverty and neglect. They are 
elderly people threatened by eviction or victimized by consumer fraud. 
They are veterans denied benefits, and small farmers facing eviction. 
Everywhere in rural America this is occurring.
  These are the people who will be hurt if this amendment is not 
adopted today. If Legal Services is forced to absorb the huge cuts made 
in committee, nearly a third of the 890 neighborhood Legal Services 
offices will have to close. This will leave one lawyer to serve every 
23,600 poor Americans. Over 250,000 people in need of legal services 
will have to be turned away.
  Nevertheless, we have already heard from some critics that we should 
cut the funding for the program. Why? Because some local grant 
recipients overstated the number of cases they handled back in 1997, 
chiefly by reporting telephone referrals to be cases. Never mind the 
fact that the agency itself uncovered the problem, brought it to 
congressional attention and moved speedily to correct it. Never mind 
the fact that despite the cries of fraud and abuse, neither LSC nor its 
affiliates derived any financial gain from the erroneous reports, 
because case numbers have no bearing on the program's funding levels. 
Allocations are based on eligible population living in each service 
area, not on the number of cases handled or referred. This has been 
pointed out repeatedly. However, the allegations continue.
  There is a real irony here. Those who criticize LSC for counting 
referrals as cases fail to appreciate that referrals are what an agency 
does for the thousands of needy people when it is unable to provide 
services. And even without the proposed cuts, referrals must be made in 
many thousands of cases because current funding meets only 20 percent 
of the need. So if my colleagues want to eliminate referrals, I can 
tell them how to do it. Give the Legal Services Corporation the 
resources it needs to do the job more fully.
  Instead of doing this, the committee voted to make further cuts that 
will devastate the program. Our amendment does not fully restore 
funding to last year's level because we could not find sufficient 
offsets in the bill. Moreover, some of the offsets we are using come at 
the expense of other legitimate and worthwhile programs. I am troubled 
by this, as is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  I hope that after we pass the amendment, and I hope we will, that we 
can work with the White House and our Senate colleagues to fully 
restore the funding for Legal Services and restore some of those 
offsets as well. Meanwhile, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. It is a critically important vote, and it is the right thing 
to do.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join in sponsoring this amendment to prevent the 
draconian 53 percent cut in Legal Services' funding. If the committee's 
attempt to wipe out Legal Services prevails, our poorest most 
vulnerable citizens will have no civil justice, and those sacred words 
``equal justice under law'' etched across the street on the Supreme 
Court building will be meaningless.
  Congress has already cut Legal Services 30 percent since 1995. If we 
enact this 53 percent cut on top of that 30 percent cut, we would 
devastate thousands of domestic violence victims, children, seniors, 
and people with disabilities who depend on Legal Services for their 
mere survival.
  Although as sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we would prefer 
to restore funding to last year's level, a problem with finding 
sufficient offsets means this amendment, which I am sponsoring, still 
represents a $50 million cut from last year's funding level of $300 
million.
  Now, some have argued that funding for the Legal Services Corporation 
should be drastically cut because five legal aid programs, of the 258 
programs total, allegedly overstated the number of low-income clients 
they serve. Mr. Chairman, it is time to look at the facts.
  GAO found absolutely no evidence of fraud or intentional 
misreporting. Let me repeat that. GAO found absolutely no evidence of 
fraud or intentional misreporting. The Legal Services Corporation has 
already taken action to eliminate the confusion about what constitutes 
a case for reporting purposes and it is aggressively enforcing the 
reporting guideline.
  The truth is, as the previous speaker and cosponsor of this amendment 
pointed out, no financial incentive exists to overstate the number of 
cases they handle because funding is not based on the number of cases 
but on the number of people in the area living at or below the poverty 
level. So there is absolutely no incentive for Legal Services to 
overstate the number of cases.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also time to set the record straight about the 
misleading outdated charges by people on this floor who ignore the fact 
that the Legal Services Corporation was reformed by Congress in 1996. 
In 1996, we enacted tight restrictions on the Legal Services 
Corporation, so there are no class action lawsuits, no lobbying, no 
legal assistance to illegal aliens, no political activities, no 
prisoner litigation, no redistricting representation, no collection of 
attorneys' fees, and no representation of people evicted from public 
housing because of drug charges. These restrictions are in permanent 
law, as we all should know, and are restated in this bill.
  These tight restrictions are not limited just to Legal Services 
Corporation funds. Legal aid programs cannot even use State or private 
funding on these purposes if they receive just one penny from the Legal 
Services Corporation. They cannot use State or private funding on these 
purposes that have been banned by the Congress by law. If they violate 
these restrictions, attorneys can be disbarred, programs lose their 
funding and their ability to apply for funding in the future. So we 
have appropriate sanctions to deal with any abuses.
  Now, some critics here have already pointed to a few isolated cases 
that appear to be abusive. In these cases that have actually been 
documented, not the rumors and the innuendoes, but the cases that have 
actually been documented, either no Legal Services Corporation funding 
program was involved or the Legal Services Corporation is enforcing 
sanctions against the abuses, as they should.
  But even with all the alleged abuses that have been talked about by 
critics of Legal Services, these represent a mere handful of 
aberrations in a program with countless success stories, Mr. Chairman, 
of service to domestic violence victims, to children in need of 
support, to seniors and people with disabilities in danger of losing 
the services that they need for their survival.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not shut the courthouse door to poor people in 
America. Let us not give our most vulnerable Americans the heave-ho. 
Let us give poor people and vulnerable Americans their day in court 
just like every other American. If our justice system is only 
accessible to people with means, it cannot truly be just. I urge my 
colleagues to support fairness, to support equality under the law by 
restoring Legal Services funding.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by associating myself with the 
remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). He 
has eloquently spoken of the importance of the Legal Services program 
and of the phony nature of the attacks against the Legal Services 
program.
  I would like to focus my comments on a couple of other dimensions of 
the Legal Services program. First, I think it is worth noting that the 
Legal Services Corporation is 25 years old this year. Twenty-five years 
represents the

[[Page 19493]]

commitment that we have made at the Federal level to equal access to 
the law.
  I have personally participated in various aspects of the Legal 
Services program for 32 years, going back to the mid-1960s, actually, 
34 years. I first became acquainted with it as a student in law school. 
Upon finishing law school, I joined with other attorneys in Minneapolis 
in forming a volunteer attorney program. I worked with the Legal 
Services Corporation as a law school faculty member, and then as a 
country lawyer I was on the Legal Services board in our rural area of 
Minnesota and also again worked with the volunteer attorney program.
  My service is not unique, Mr. Chairman. There are thousands and 
thousands of lawyers around the country who have volunteered millions 
of hours of time to provide volunteer legal services to those in our 
country who cannot afford access to the legal system.
  Now, some may say if there are all of these volunteer attorneys, why 
do we need this Federal money? Well, I can assure my colleagues that 
the ability of volunteers to handle the caseload is not adequate to the 
demands that are made upon the programs. It simply is not there. And 
the established program is important in coordinating the work of the 
volunteers, in making sure that they have some of the basic resources 
that are necessary for adequate representation. The Legal Services 
Corporation and the individual programs around the country are serving 
a vital need in even this coordination function.
  Going beyond that, I think that it is critical that we understand the 
importance of equal access to the law in this country. It is one of the 
fundamental concepts in our Democratic form of government that 
everybody has access to the political and the legal processes of our 
Nation. If we lose this quality of equal access to the law in America, 
we compromise our commitments to our Democratic form of government. 
Once people feel that they are consigned to the trash heap of being 
unable to obtain redress for their legal grievances, they lose faith in 
our Democratic form of government.
  And we may say, well, it is the ballot box that they have access to. 
But I would like to emphasize that the arena in which we are working, 
the legislative branch, the elected officials, is only part of our form 
of government.

                              {time}  1430

  The rest of it is the judicial system. And redress of grievances is 
as important a function of the judicial system and our ensuring people 
that they have access to the judicial system is as important as 
ensuring them that they have access to the ballot box. We cannot 
compromise this feature of our democratic form of government without in 
my opinion undermining our democratic form of government. For this 
reason, I urge that all of us maintain a commitment to this very 
important program.
  I would also like to point out that in funding this program, we are 
not funding some lavish program that has highly compensated employees. 
We are funding a program that is employing people at very modest levels 
of compensation. Often what we find is that the attorneys in the Legal 
Services program serve a few years and go on into private practice 
because they say they cannot afford to continue to work in a program 
that provides modest compensation. If you compare this to the Medicaid 
and the Medicare programs in our country, you will find that the 
professional, the university, the postgraduate educated folks are not 
highly compensated members of their profession. They are very humbly 
compensated. So we, I think, have a very economical program. We are 
getting a very good return on our dollar.
  I again urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate really, let me assure my colleagues, is not 
about the attributes of the volunteers at home who do good work, I 
believe, for their clients who need their assistance. This debate is 
all about integrity. This debate is all about honesty.
  Let me give my colleagues a little bit of background of what happened 
this year. I had an individual come to my office who worked for Legal 
Services to explain to me, because of my position on this subcommittee 
on appropriations that funds Legal Services, exactly what had happened 
in 1997 and 1998 and exactly what had happened when we were going 
through the process last year of appropriating additional dollars for 
Legal Services.
  This individual, who happened to be in part working with the 
Inspector General at Legal Services and with the Inspector General at 
Legal Services, had audited five different agencies, local agencies, 
and found that they had overreported their cases in those five by 
90,000 cases. If anyone will remember the debate last year on Legal 
Services about how many times people would stand up here and say that 
Legal Services did 1.9 million cases last year and this justifies our 
appropriation.
  So after this individual, who was with the Inspector General, came to 
my office to tell me what had happened, we ordered a GAO report to look 
at just six more local agencies. When they looked at those six 
agencies, they found that another 75,000 cases were falsely reported. 
So in total now, Mr. Chairman, we are up about 165,000, 170,000 cases, 
or 50 percent of the total cases reported by these 11 agencies.
  Now, the question is, should they have told us last year before we 
made the appropriation for Legal Services that their numbers were 
totally bogus? They say, ``No, we don't have any cause to report to you 
on a timely basis.'' I would respectfully submit the fact that under 
the Inspector General statute, they in fact were required to report to 
Congress and the Legal Services board was required to report to us 
exactly the phony numbers that they had derived and that they put to 
Congress. And when they were questioned during the appropriations 
process, they continually denied that they had held back this 
information until in fact I was able to lay the facts out.
  We wonder why this would happen. The reason is, Mr. Chairman, the 
Inspector General at Legal Services, which the board admitted to the 
committee, said that his job was in jeopardy, and in fact what 
happened, he did not report to Congress as it is stated in statute that 
he has to if there are dramatic changes, he did not, because he was 
afraid of losing his job at Legal Services.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this is not about what Legal Services does. This 
is about integrity and honesty to Congress. Every Member here should 
show the disdain toward Legal Services which they showed toward you as 
a Member of Congress, to flat out come to us with false numbers and 
then say once again, ``No, these are true'' until they were presented 
with the facts and then they say, ``Well, wait a minute, it doesn't 
matter what we said, because our appropriation isn't based on that, 
anyway.''
  This is a personal affront to every Member of Congress. If you 
believe that Congress can now go forward and talk to any other Federal 
agency and say that they have to be accountable but say to Legal 
Services, ``It doesn't matter what you tell us because it's okay 
because you have a role that people like, that you're helping poor 
people, so it's okay no matter what you tell Congress to justify the 
money.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is what it is about. It is about honesty and 
integrity. I personally have supported Legal Services in the past. You 
can check my record. I have voted to increase funding. But I will not 
do so this year. The reason is, because I will not be insulted once 
again.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate 
the proposed draconian 53 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

[[Page 19494]]

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 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 perpetrate 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 a 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 
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.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, equal access under the law. Equal justice for all. The 
compassionate Nation providing legal resources to obtain these things 
for the poor and the itinerate in this population. These are great 
principles. They are honorable principles. They are principles we all 
embrace and principles we are willing to support. These are principles, 
Mr. Chairman, that we have entrusted to the Legal Services Corporation. 
We have said, ``This is an important job. It is a job where you are 
trusted to reflect the heart, the compassion, the commitment of the 
American people. Do it right. Be of service. Make us proud.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation has failed in this duty. 
They have failed in such a way as to inflate the statistical data for 
the purpose of getting more of that money that might be otherwise used.
  Mr. Chairman, in February of 1999, John McKay, the President of Legal 
Services Corporation said, and I quote, ``Case statistics play an 
essential role in budget requests and the performance plan submitted by 
the Legal Services Corporation to Congress each year.''
  He went on to say, ``Therefore, the reliability of case 
statistics''--therefore, the reliability of case statistics--
reliability, that it be true and accurate. That is what ``reliability'' 
means here. True and accurate reporting of real cases really handled 
that reflect our compassion and our commitment to equal justice under 
the law for all Americans. ``The reliability of case statistics 
submitted by programs to LSC is vital to obtaining continued Federal 
funding for Legal Services.'' This type of information holds great 
promise for securing increased Federal funding.
  I could not agree more. Give us great reliability, and we will 
fulfill great promise for increased funding. But what did we find out? 
The Inspector General of Legal Services Corporation and the General 
Accounting Office audited 11 grantees. What did they find out? These 11 
grantees reported 370,000 cases handled. The IG and the GAO 
invalidated, either because the case was not handled, it was merely a 
phone call and a referral or that the case was in fact a case taken on 
by Legal Services for somebody with means not intended to be covered by 
this service under the law or that the case was counted more than one 
time, 175,000 invalid cases.

                              {time}  1445

  That is not the judgment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). 
That is the General Accounting Office, the accountability test.
  The committee, quite rightly, saw this, took Mr. John McKay at his 
word and engaged in a further endorsement not only of what this agency 
is supposed to do but the standard by which they should demonstrate 
their achievement as reported by the agency themselves and cut their 
budget back to their actual caseload. A fair thing to do. A necessary 
thing to do.
  Accountability is not a passing fancy, my colleagues, in the 
Government of the United States. We are given a trust to create 
agencies of compassion and service and then to hold them accountable to 
the fulfillment of that promise and the law by which we created.
  Agencies that fail in their duty should not be rewarded. Yes, indeed, 
if our favorite charity was not in fact doing the things for which we 
voluntarily give our money, we would cut back. And we, as Members of 
Congress, given the trust to represent the compassion of the American 
people, must do the same for a Federal Government agency that does not 
fulfill its promise.
  That is what is going on here. Do not reward them for giving us data 
that is not reliable for inflating the caseloads.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, one final observation. If we are going to in fact 
restore money to Legal Services Corporation by this amendment in order 
to let them continue to operate in such a fashion as to report so many 
more cases than they actually do, where does

[[Page 19495]]

this amendment suggest we take the money? From all funds to run the 
seized asset program vital to the battle against drug traffickers. 
Twenty million from the FBI's investigative expenses, 44 million from 
INS border enforcement, 44 million from violent crime initiative, 32 
million from Federal prisons, and 10 million from operations of the 
Federal Court.
  This is a serious moment in oversight accountability and service, Mr. 
Chairman. Are we in Congress going to take money from these agencies 
with these precious necessary duties so important to the safety and 
security of our citizens and say, no, we will take that fund away from 
them and give it to an agency that has been proven to squander their 
money and report falsely?
  Mr. Chairman, for me to falsely represent my misdeeds is 
unacceptable. But, Mr. Chairman, for me to exaggerate and falsely 
report my virtue in the quest for the taxpayers' dollar is wholly 
unacceptable and frankly undignified.
  Let us vote for the dignity, the service, and the compassion of the 
American people through its government and vote down this amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  I can understand why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
entered that amendment, because he has had first-rate experience with 
some of the pious platitudes I hear on this floor. He has seen some of 
the things that are happening. He is not basing all of his opinion 
merely on statistical data.
  My mother used to have an old saying, ``Figures do not lie but liars 
figure.'' We find that out a lot of times when we look at things in the 
Congress.
  I just heard a litany of abuses of the Legal Services system, one of 
which said 11 particular programs in Legal Services abuse the 
statistical count.
  What about the 258 others? Are they to go down because 11 of them 
went out of the way? 250,000 cases we are looking at. So what are the 
opponents of the Legal Services program voting against? They are voting 
against the rights and interest of one in every five Americans who are 
potentially eligible for legal services.
  My colleagues are against their right to contest evictions when the 
slum lords put them out. They are willing to protect them so that they 
can contest foreclosures on these poor people, to obtain access to 
health care. They are willing to protect them because of these 11 
people who abuse the law. They are trying to keep them from seeking 
redress, which anyone in this country should have, for child support 
and custody matters, to pursue unemployment or disability claims, or to 
protect their family members from domestic violence, one of the biggest 
problems we have in this country.
  The Legal Services opponents are voting against some four million 
Legal Services clients. I see them every day in my community. Most of 
my colleagues see them in their community. I am not the only one.
  So remember, we are representing people here. We are not representing 
some numbers that someone has put together to make us believe that 
there is this widespread abuse. I say to my colleagues, there is not.
  My colleagues are overlooking the family members which they talk so 
much about, family values. If we believe in family values, let us then 
protect some of these poor and middle-class people who cannot afford to 
protect their families. They are voting against the elderly people of 
this country who comprise 10 percent of Legal Services clients. They do 
not know which way to go. They cannot go to another attorney.
  Simply put, they are voting against equal justice under the law. I 
could give my colleagues all kinds of cases which would refute what we 
have heard on the floor today regarding the liability and validity of 
numbers.
  I am saying to my colleagues to look at the 11 cases. Yes, they 
should be punished. But do not cut their budget down to $150 million. 
Look at all the money we spend here in the Congress. We spend it on 
widgets and gidgets and everything else. Yet we cannot look at these 
poor families that need legal services.
  They have met some success over the years, Legal Services has. In 
1995, we gave them $415 million for legal services. That was not a 
whole heck of a lot, but at least we gave it to them.
  In 1996 we cut them to $278 million, slowly deescalating this 
wonderful agency. At the end of 1994, Legal Services programs funded by 
the LSC operated more than 1,200 neighborhood offices and they employed 
4,500 attorneys.
  These attorneys are not making a big amount of money either. They are 
working for the good of the people. By the end of 1996, we closed down 
300 offices and the number of attorneys was cut by 900.
  Where are we going to send these people? We cannot send them to a 
big, highly-paid lawyer. Where are we going to send these senior 
citizens who have no redress?
  So in Florida there are about 106 million people living at or below 
the poverty level. They qualify for LSC-funded programs. In the Miami 
area alone, there are 350,000 poor citizens who are eligible and depend 
upon Legal Services programs.
  Walk the streets of Miami with me and my colleagues will see those 
who came there, some by boat, some by ship, some forced there; and they 
cannot get any help because here in the Congress we quibble over $250 
million.
  I say to my colleagues it is a travesty of justice. I hope that we 
will vote for the Serrano amendment and forget about this litany of 
statistical misinformation.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment that has been offered 
to reinstate some of the funds for Legal Services. I do so with great 
pain and reluctance. Because many times in the past, even though I have 
always supported the right of the poor to have and to gain access to 
the court systems of our country, I have felt that there were certain 
abuses, alleged or actual or real, within the Legal Services 
Corporation and its grantees that cried out for reform.
  We have succeeded many times to bring about such reforms. Those 
reforms are still in the play book. We must bring more accountability 
to Legal Services. But until we do, we cannot immediately put a 
finishing touch on the Legal Services' attempt to serve those people 
who are already on the books and who are yet to come.
  I looked very carefully at the report of the committee, which I think 
is one of the finest analyses accompanying a decision by an 
appropriations committee that I have ever seen, and it seems to me that 
the language of the report serves as our next set of duties in the 
questions of the Legal Services Corporation.
  The committee report talks about the serious concerns about the case 
service reporting and associated data reports, all those things that 
have been repeated by both the proponents and the opponents of Legal 
Services.
  There is no question about it, we need accountability. There are 
abuses rampant in what we have seen already on the record in this 
proceeding.
  It is my reasoning that we ought to consider all of this as 
allegations for the time being that the report by the committee, as 
excellent as it is, should constitute an indictment against the Legal 
Services Corporation and that we should, as fact-finders, proceed down 
the line with hearings and other oversight capacity to make sure that 
this never occurs again.
  Now, if we consider this an indictment, that means that we should not 
consider the Legal Services Corporation at this moment or the grantees 
guilty. We give them the benefit of the doubt, assume their innocence 
until they are proven guilty, and then move to the rest of the calendar 
in this remaining first year of this session and in the next session to 
determine the truth of the allegations, and then in next year's 
allocation and appropriation, in that time, to make the corrections 
that are absolutely necessary.

[[Page 19496]]

  This is an indictment that the Legal Services Corporation shall not 
avoid, and we have the duty to pursue this indictment. We have already 
determined in the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 
that we will have an oversight hearing on the Legal Services 
Corporation on Wednesday, September 22, 1999, at 2 p.m. We are doing so 
in following the lead of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary because of 
the findings of that committee; and that committee set of findings will 
also be part of the hearing that we intend to conduct.
  At all times, we will keep in constant touch with the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to make sure that this indictment against the 
Legal Services Corporation be fully fleshed out in a full trial before 
the American people to guarantee that the money will go to serve the 
poor, to guarantee access of the court system to the poor, and to make 
sure that accountability for it and accountability by the professionals 
shall be a part of the next era of Legal Services.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a number of speakers on 
either side waiting to be heard. But I wonder, in the interest of time, 
if it might be possible to set some sort of time limit on the time 
devoted to this amendment. We have a number of other amendments 
waiting.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have a time limit of 30 minutes for 
all debate on this amendment and amendments thereto divided equally 
between both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I appreciate 
the desire of the chairman to set a reasonable time limit. But I think 
there are probably more Members here wishing to speak. So if he would 
amend his unanimous consent request to, I think, an hour, that may be 
satisfactory.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think if we did 40 minutes it would be a 
reasonable time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my right to object, I 
believe we have too many Members on the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me compliment the ranking member on this 
amendment which I support which would restore the moneys that have been 
cut or recommended to be cut from the Legal Services Corporation.
  It is interesting. I listened to some of the opponents, and the Legal 
Services Corporation has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 
history and for good reason. There are many Republicans and Democrats 
who are coming to the well today to speak in favor of this amendment 
because we understand the importance of equal access to our legal 
system in our rule of law.
  We are looked upon around the world as the beacon of hope for 
democracy and freedom, in part because of our rule of law. Our rule of 
law does not mean anything unless we have equal access to justice, and 
the Legal Services Corporation helps provide that equal access to 
justice.
  The Legal Service Corporation is a conduit of funds that go into our 
local communities. They are used for basic services in our legal 
system, to get child support payments, or to get protective orders 
against abuse, or to help get benefits that people are entitled to, 
low-income Americans; they are entitled to that rule of law, to the 
access to our legal system.
  Now the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, would cut the funding to the 
Legal Service Corporation by 53 percent, to $141 million.
  Mr. Chairman, for a period of time I chaired the Maryland Legal 
Services Corporation, and as a private attorney I handled pro bono 
cases; and, yes, there is a responsibility on the private sector to 
help make access to justice a reality for all people in our community, 
but government must play a principal role.
  The last time that we had a major cut in 1995, I can tell my 
colleagues what happened in my own State of Maryland. The Maryland 
Legal Services had to close two offices, and there was drastic cuts 
which necessitated further closings, eliminating about 20 attorney 
positions, forcing Legal Aid to handle about 6,000 fewer cases. I can 
tell my colleagues today that we can handle about 30 percent of the 
need in our community of people who come forward for help, and in many 
of those cases we have to conclude those issues through legal advice 
only because we do not have the support necessary to pursue a court 
remedy.
  That is not equal access to our justice system. That is wrong. We 
should do better, and we can do better.
  We have looked at the Maryland statistics, and this is true around 
the Nation. We know that we are not meeting the need that is there. We 
know in every State in the country there are people being turned away 
today, and let me remind my colleagues the Legal Service Corporation 
provides some of the funds for the local programs, and we want to 
penalize the local programs and our constituents and penalize our 
system of justice because of an audit report that quite frankly I do 
not think is the real reason why this cut is being brought forward. 
Many of the people that are supporting it have never supported the 
Legal Services Corporation. They will look for any reason to reduce 
that budget.
  Mr. Chairman, access to our legal system by every American, no matter 
how poor, is vital to the liberties that this Congress is supposed to 
protect and promote. If my colleagues will vote against this amendment, 
they are voting against fairness and access to our justice for people 
in this country who are most in need. It would be a shameful stance for 
this body to provide such a drastic cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for several 
reasons. First of all, I have a philosophical difference with my 
colleagues on whether this is a Federal responsibility. I do not 
disagree with the previous speaker about the need for access to legal 
services, but we are talking about State court issues and not the 
Federal court issues. So the question is: Why is the Federal Government 
taking this responsibility?
  So I just have a question, why we need to do it. At the Federal court 
level I definitely could support it or this type of program, but the 
State court level, this should be a State and local responsibility.
  The second reason I have a problem with this particular amendment is 
the way we are trying to fund it. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) had a very tight number to work with, and we all recognize 
that; and he had to make some tough choices, and what this amendment 
does is it cuts programs from essential Federal programs.
  For example, it is going to cut $44 million from the Border Patrol. 
We have all agreed we need to tighten our border, and now we are going 
to cut 44 million?
  The National Instant Check System. We have all been fighting over the 
gun issue. We all agree, I think, that we should have an instant check. 
And now our colleagues want to take $20 million away from that? How do 
we even do it if we want to check for guns if they are going to take 
the money away when we start going after the issue of gun shows unless 
it is a funded program?
  We are going to take $44 million from the violent crime reduction 
program and the Federal prisons, $32 million. Well, let us see. Let us 
just turn some more prisoners loose and cut the Federal prison system.

[[Page 19497]]

  So it is wrong to make these cuts.
  And, finally, the third reason I am opposed to this is what the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) talked about, and that is this issue of credibility of the Legal 
Services Corporation. GAO and the Inspector General both issued reports 
that really question the credibility there as an oversight 
responsibility. We need to make sure that the money is being spent in 
the right manner and wisely, and the Legal Services Corporation has not 
been straight with the subcommittee.
  So Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about whether this program 
should even exist, and I very much disagree with the gentleman, the 
ranking member, for taking cuts from programs that are already cut too 
much already, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me renew my unanimous consent request.
  I think the number of speakers has diminished somewhat. If each of 
them would restrict their comments maybe to 3 minutes apiece, I think 
we can be through in a reasonably short period of time.
  Could we agree to a 30-minute limit of time divided equally?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is that a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ROGERS. That is a unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. BERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, under my 
reservation I yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for any thoughts he has.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's request, and 
we all want to finish as quickly as we can, but there are just on this 
side too many speakers.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. If I can inquire, how many speakers does my colleague 
have?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
we know of at least about a dozen who want to speak now, and all the 
courtesy should be given to them. So it is a problem at this point.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I only see three on the gentleman's side. 
There is maybe four on my side.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can take my word for it. 
They are here if their time comes to speak.
  Mr. ROGERS. Well, can we agree on any time limit, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. BERMAN. Under my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask the gentleman, for the life of me I never understand why when we go 
to the Committee on Rules we do not come out with a set time limit so 
that time can be allocated at the beginning based on the demand for 
people to speak, but at this particular point I just think we are not 
quite ready to entertain this. I suggest submitting it in a little 
while, but we are not quite ready, and so I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment just to review the 
bidding on the Legal Services Corporation.
  In 1981 this program took an unbelievably deep cut which it took 11 
years, until Fiscal Year 1993, to get back to where it was in 1981. In 
Fiscal Year 1995, we finally reached the $400 million level on Legal 
Services Corporation appropriations, a level which served nowhere near 
50 percent of the population then living in poverty in terms of legal 
services programs.
  Since that time the program has been reduced to the present level of 
300 millions, so the bill in front of us which the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) seek to amend is a 53 
percent cut for a program that is already $100 million less than it was 
in Fiscal Year 1995. This is a massive cutback in an essential program.
  All the laws we have to protect consumers and tenants and employees, 
our whole quality of life, these are rendered virtually meaningless for 
low-income people if they cannot get a lawyer to advocate on their 
behalf.
  When I hear the leader talk about the different sins of the Legal 
Services Corporation, and on each one there is an answer, there is a 
different interpretation; I believe there is a fairer interpretation. 
What I do know is that the distinguished majority leader has opposed 
the Legal Services Corporation every year with the GAO report, without 
a GAO report, with an Inspector General comment, without an Inspector 
General comment. The majority leader does not like the program.
  Now there is an alternative to Legal Services Corporation. It is 
creating the most massive bureaucracy of enforcers of these laws one 
could imagine at a time when we surely do not want to do that to 
regulate and control every aspect of commercial and landlord-tenant and 
other kinds of private relationships to make sure that low-income 
people are getting a fair shake.
  I suggest this program is the most efficient and most effective way. 
It utilizes the skills of tremendously talented people who get very low 
wages. No one in this Chamber would work for the salaries that these 
people are working for. These people could make factors of two and 
three times as much money going off in the private sector, but their 
commitment to serve low-income people allows them and motivates them to 
serve in these kinds of jobs.
  The American people and the low-income people in this country are 
getting tremendous service from this. We talk about case numbers. One 
can have a case that involves a phone call for 20 minutes and an 
interview for 15 minutes and a letter that takes another 10 minutes, or 
one can have a case that takes hundreds of hours of research and 
judicial time and court time and deposition time and discovery time. To 
get into a clinical analysis of numbers of cases and then make 
automatic assumptions about budget makes no sense whatsoever in terms 
of the real world of the legal practice of these people who again, I 
repeat, are working at far below the incomes that their talents would 
justify.
  I myself think the amendment in front of us is much too low; $250 
million is not an acceptable figure. That would leave a cut of $50 
million from the already too low level we are at this year. I myself do 
not like the offsets, but I know that in a conference committee we can 
change the offsets, we can continue this effort; and if my colleagues 
believe in what the Legal Services programs represent in this country, 
they have to vote aye on this amendment, and I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I would just take time from the gentleman to clarify a 
point.
  This amendment does not cut any funding from the Border Patrol. My 
amendment merely shifts funding from one INS account to another, a 
shift of $44 million that is budget-authority neutral. This shift is 
necessary to keep this amendment outlay-neutral in total.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to add one thing. 
There are other offsets, some of them I have to admit I do not like, I 
would not have chosen. But I have to sympathize with the subcommittee, 
too. I could not come up. The cap for this subcommittee is woefully 
inadequate to meet the needs of the Commerce Department, the Justice 
Department, the State Department and Legal Services Corporation. It is 
woefully inadequate to do that. Any offset is going to pay a price, but 
the principle here is the principle, do we continue our commitment to 
legal services for the poor? I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold my colleague from California in high regard, but 
I

[[Page 19498]]

just have a different opinion about this. I agree with the majority 
leader. It is just unbelievable to me that we are talking about cutting 
FBI funds, the funds for the INS, which we believe goes to the Border 
Patrol, for the violent crime reduction programs, for the Federal 
prison system, even cutting judges' salaries in order to fund this 
Federal legal services program. Whatever happened to the States? 
Whatever happened to volunteerism? Why do we have to have the Federal 
Government step in and fill every little nook and cranny?

                              {time}  1515

  We are in the era of downsizing and of moving power back from the 
Federal Government to the States. It is not as though there are not 
well-established programs and many, many attorneys across the country 
already donating their time. So, please, I support helping poor people 
as well as anyone else. It does not require increasing the budget of 
the Legal Services Corporation.
  I heard my friend who spoke earlier from Florida talk about giving 
them the benefit of the doubt. They do not deserve the benefit of the 
doubt. This is an entity that has repeatedly abused its authority, and 
now we find evidence that they have intentionally and wrongfully 
inflated their statistics with the intent to secure more funding. So we 
are going to turn around and give them more funding, when we have 
caught them red-handed deceiving the Congress about how much work they 
actually do?
  This is just outrageous. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) for his speech against this amendment, and I hope we will all 
join with him.
  We are about setting priorities. This is not a high priority. In 
fact, this agency deserves to be punished for the clear abuses it has 
committed. We should not reward them. What are we going to say to these 
arrogant Federal bureaucrats if we allow them to lie and then to be 
blessed with a huge increase in funding as a result of that lie? I 
think it is very, very bad policy.
  I think I should remind Members that this agency, we as a Congress 
actually had to get involved and tell the Legal Services Corporation 
through legislation that they could not get involved in redistricting, 
that they could not get involved in abortion litigation or prison 
litigation on behalf of prisoners' rights or welfare litigation or pro-
union advocacy or union organizing; they could not get involved in fee-
generating cases or representation of public housing tenants charged 
with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings 
had begun as a result of illegal drug activity; we had to tell them 
they could not get involved in representing illegal aliens.
  It is outrageous. So we told them. Hopefully they are complying, 
although we will see. But now they are inflating their own statistics.
  I think it is interesting that the President of Legal Services, Mr. 
McKay, earlier this year no less had this to say: ``Case statistics 
play an essential role in the budget request and performance plans 
submitted by the Legal Services Corporation to Congress each year. 
Therefore, the reliability of case statistics submitted by programs to 
Legal Services Corporation is vital to obtaining continued Federal 
funding for Legal Services. This type of information holds great 
promise for securing increased Federal funding.'' Then we find out that 
they have just about 50 percent less clients than was represented.
  It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. We should oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. To the Members of 
the House, I have just listened to the very scathing critique of 
another colleague who supports the majority leader's position, but I 
rise to point out that this request is still $50 million short of last 
year's funding level. What we have here is still a reduction, even with 
the amendment skillfully put together by the gentleman from New York in 
a bipartisan way.
  Let me tell you that in Michigan, these Legal Service corporations do 
wonderful work. Wayne County Legal Service, headed by attorney Linda 
Bernard, has been working for years and years on a very important 
mission and does great work. They get rave reviews constantly.
  This request, even though short $50 million of last year's funding 
level, is still $90 million short of the administration's request, so I 
do not think we are doing anything as dramatic as one of the speakers 
indicated.
  Are we trying to punish the poor or deprive them from legal access? 
This amendment says restore funding.
  As it is written, we cannot help but notice that the bankruptcy 
reform that the majority supported, that the majority leader supported, 
gives big companies and powerful creditors even more power, and at the 
same time they impose dramatic cuts on Legal Services representation 
for the poor. What are we revealing about this Congress? Fortunately, I 
am told that most of the Members of the House and the other body 
support some modest improvements.
  So we have to remember that during last year's impeachment 
proceedings, it was the majority that clamored about ensuring equal 
access to justice and equal access to the courts. The cuts in this 
bill, however, only ensure unequal access to the court.
  Remember, the Legal Services Corporation is only representing some of 
the people that are eligible. It is not that everybody eligible for 
Legal Services that is getting them. We are still very much short of 
providing all of the work and representation they need.
  Now, these are not bureaucrats. Somebody referred to them as 
bureaucrats. These are members of the bar who have sacrificed in many 
ways, not just financially, but to work the long hard hours. I have 
visited some of these people. They work long hard hours on cases that 
will not bring them fame, certainly not fortune. So to merely pass them 
off as some kind of a government apparatus is really not doing fairness 
and demeans the whole concept of this organization.
  Happy birthday, Legal Services Corporation. You are 25 years old, and 
there are still people trying to beat your brains out. Perhaps you are 
doing too good a job to those who do not want the poor to be 
represented. But I am sure that there is a spirit larger than some of 
the language and debate that I am hearing here.
  So, despite repeated attempts to reduce Legal Services, and, from 
some people's point of view, let us face it, to kill Legal Services, to 
get rid of it entirely, we feel that there is strong support in both 
bodies for this Legal Services mission.
  Join us in this bipartisan effort to show that democracy can work in 
the Legal Services area.
  I commend all of the Members who have created this amendment, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ramstad), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and 
I think that they will be rewarded in the end.
  I urge the Members to support the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment 
seeking funding for the Legal Services Corporation at the level of $250 
million. This is a modest request that is still $90 million short of 
the Administration's request and $50 million short of last year's 
funding level.
  As it is written, this bill demonstrates the hypocrisy of the 
Majority's position. They use bankruptcy reform to give big companies 
and powerful creditors even more power, and, at the same time, they 
impose dramatic cuts on the Legal Services Corporation to take power 
away from those who have none. Moreover, during last Congress's 
impeachment proceedings, the Majority clamored about ensuring equal 
access to justice and equal access to the courts. The cuts in this 
bill, however, only ensure unequal access to justice. If the Majority 
truly is interested in empowering those who most need legal assistance, 
the powerless, it will support this modest increase in funding for the 
LSC.
  Only in March, Majority Members of the Judiciary Committee promised 
to hold a hearing on what level of funding the LSC should receive. Yet, 
here we are, 5 months later, and no such hearings have been held. Now, 
we are left debating the future of the LSC, at the last possible 
minute, on the House floor. We

[[Page 19499]]

cannot allow the Majority to constrict the LSC until it can no longer 
function.
  Despite repeated attempts to reduce or kill legal services funding, 
we have learned that the full House and Senate are strongly supportive 
of the Legal Services mission, which is to assist non-profit 
organizations that provide legal services to individuals living in 
poverty.
  And the need for Legal Services continues to be overwhelming even 
though we live in a time of great economic prosperity. There are still 
35 million Americans living below the poverty line and 10 million 
additional individuals with income below 125% of the poverty level. 
This means almost 1 in 5 Americans is eligible for LSC-funded services.
  If we increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, we will 
enable it to address over 1.6 million issues annually involving 
critical legal problems for clients and their families, including 
employment disputes, individual rights, consumer fraud, and assistance 
to veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
  Nearly 30% of the requested increase is needed to provide a small 
cost of living adjustment, while the remaining 70% would fund 
initiatives to help victims of domestic violence and children, and to 
expand the use of technology to promote client self-help.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this common sense 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points. Legal Services 
was in need of reform, desperate reform, and I have got to tell you 
that in 1996 that happened. There are strong penalties for those that 
abuse the system. In fact, you can lose your license. You can be 
disbarred.
  In 1995, Legal Services was cut by one-third, and that cut is in 
essence still in place. In fact, if the Serrano amendment does pass 
today, there will still be a $50 million cut in 2000 versus 1999. It 
does not go quite far enough.
  Some here today have talked about some abuses. As far as I know, they 
are pretty old abuses. They were corrected, rightly so. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) who spoke a little bit before me talked 
about some of the abuses, and he was quite proud, rightly so, of the 
efforts that were made.
  Some here today may have heard from some of their farmers, and 
goodness knows I have a lot of folks in agriculture in southwest 
Michigan. Last year, I wrote more than 4,000 of my farmers asking them 
for specific cases of abuse that they could tell me about involving 
Legal Services. Do you know how many responses I got back? None. Not a 
single farmer responded back with a single case of abuse, period.
  Lawyers are expensive. They are costly to any family, whether you be 
rich or poor.
  Let me tell you about a couple of the cases I found out, my local 
Legal Services, what they have done back in Michigan this year. The 
Berrien County Legal Services, my home county, intervened to assist a 
home-bound elderly woman who was ready to sign an unfair contract for 
home improvement. Not only did this widow avoid, thank goodness, 
because of the efforts of Legal Services, but she avoided entering into 
that agreement, and had she done so, the contractor would have ended up 
owning all of the equity in her home. Wrong. She got help, and she 
deserved it.
  Another case, Legal Services helped a 76-year-old woman adopting her 
8-year-old great granddaughter that she had raised from birth, even 
though the adoption was contested by the girl's father, her real 
father, who is serving time in prison and, in fact, had never seen his 
daughter. Legal Services succeeded in keeping this young girl in a 
stable home environment that she had known from birth. Those are the 
cases that Legal Services does every day of the week.
  We have heard a little bit about padding some of the cases here, and, 
rightly so, perhaps. It is troublesome. But I have to tell you, the 
funding for all of these counties comes based on the poverty level in 
your counties. It is not by level of cases. It is based on need.
  This is a program that works. If it does not work, Members of this 
House should go to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has proven his moxie, has proven 
he has the votes to get things done, bring those abuses to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and, if they are true, he will fix them. I 
have confidence in the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  There are lots of statements around here that are chiseled into 
buildings. ``Equal justice under law.'' Let us not ask that brick layer 
to take that statement off the wall and instead put in ``no justice for 
some.''
  Without this amendment, the brick layers may as well go back to work. 
Let us not close the courthouse doors. Let us not take away rights that 
the middle class and the rich are able to be able to pay for, whether 
it be adoption or custody or even doing a will. That is not right.
  This amendment, even if it passes, still reduces Legal Services by 
almost 20 percent. A $50 million cut in a $300,000 program is still 
going to throw a lot of people out of work.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak in support of the Serrano-
Ramstad-Delahunt amendment to restore funding to Legal Services 
Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services 
Corporation will suffer yet another devastating blow.
  As currently written, this bill provides only $141 million for Legal 
Services Corporation. This proposal is $159 million less than the 
current appropriation and $199 million less than the administration's 
request. Such a reduction would crush an already vulnerable Legal 
Services, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide Legal 
Services for those who most need it.
  Let us be clear: Legal Services has already been cut to the bone. 
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. I know that there are people 
who just do not like legal aid, so they have decided to devastate it by 
attacking it every year with cuts, cutting it to the bone so it cannot 
operate. It is not fair.
  The effects of these cuts are already being felt by those low-income 
clients that depend on Legal Services organizations. In California, the 
Legal Services Corporation provided Legal Services to 217,015 clients 
in 1997. Those represented included our most vulnerable citizens, 
including the elderly, battered women, and families who are barely 
surviving poverty.

                              {time}  1530

  However, if the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment is not accepted, 
we, as legislators, would effectively be abandoning the longstanding 
commitment to legal services for the poor.
  Let us put a face on it. Who are we talking about? We are talking 
about renters. Do my colleagues know that still in America there are 
unscrupulous landlords who turn off the water, who put padlocks on the 
doors, who set people out on the sidewalk. They would rather do this 
than go through the expense of going through the courts, and if they 
went to the courts, many times, the renters would be found to be within 
their rights to refuse payment. In California, we have Deduct and 
Repair. If one is living in run-down rental units, if the water is not 
working, the electricity is not working, one can repair it and deduct 
it from the rent. Some landlords do not like that. So we have people 
who depend on Legal Services. We have the elderly, as just described, 
who are oftentimes tricked into signing contracts, and they cannot get 
out of them alone. They cannot get to the courts. They do not have any 
money.
  We have people who are tricked into signing contracts that my 
colleagues and I, if we saw them, would be outraged by them, but it is 
legal services who is there to help. The more we cut them, the more 
exposed these very vulnerable populations are.
  To make matters worse, in my own State, the State of California, many 
of the poor are already without service because of Governor Pete 
Wilson's veto of the State Bar Fee Authorization in 1997. The poor in 
California have been failed by their governor, and this amendment is 
their last hope. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services

[[Page 19500]]

will mean that whole sectors of our society will be left without access 
to Legal Services Corporations. In many poor and rural regions of the 
country, there will be no publicly-funded legal assistance available to 
the poor. We must not forget that 40 percent of the 23 million people 
over 18 who live in poverty in this country are the working poor, and 
they also depend on Legal Services, organizations for legal assistance.
  Now, I know there are some who do not know a lot about this, and they 
may think that the poor are just in these inner cities depending on 
these services. I am amazed at how many legislators are representing 
poor districts that are not cities, that are in suburban communities, 
in rural communities, and they act as if they do not have the poor. 
They are simply not getting their representation.
  There are many poor farmers who need legal services, who have lost 
everything, who have nowhere to turn. And the legal services are there 
for them in some areas, but with these kinds of cuts, we are not going 
to have them in those poor, rural communities.
  The American public supports a federally funded Legal Services 
Corporation for those individuals who would not otherwise be able to 
afford an attorney's services in certain civil matters. The provision 
of adequate Federal funding for legal services cannot be provided 
elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for support for this very important 
amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Arizona, 
who is a member of the committee.
  I rise to oppose this amendment on behalf of farmers of all income 
levels in Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and throughout the 
southeastern United States. This agency, under the leadership of 
President John McKay, has abused its legislative mandate and has misled 
the U.S. Congress, as many people have talked about, on its caseload. 
We could spend a lot of time talking about the caseload, but I want to 
talk about an aspect of the Legal Services Corporation that continues 
to create problems, particularly in the Southeast, as well as other 
parts of the country.
  Section 504 of the law states that none of the funds appropriated in 
this act to Legal Services may be used to provide legal services for or 
on behalf of any alien, unless the alien is present in the United 
States.
  Now, that should be clear to anyone, and we want aliens who are 
working in the U.S. under some agricultural program to have access to 
the courts. And they do have access to the courts. But when they leave 
and they go back to Mexico or wherever they may go, the law states that 
they cannot be bringing lawsuits while they are not present in the U.S.
  But, despite that, the President of the Legal Services Corporation, 
John McKay, has said that he will not penalize any Legal Services 
Corporation if they misinterpret the phrase, ``is present in the United 
States.'' He wants it to say, ``was present in the United States.'' Mr. 
McKay goes on to say that he has absolute discretion to determine what 
laws to enforce and how.
  Now, the Legal Services Corporation, as a result of that, has ignored 
the statutory authority that is even in the bill this year. It was 
there last year and he ignored it, and it was there the year before and 
he ignored it, and the legal services lawyers from North Carolina were 
videotaped on an illegal trip to Mexico to recruit clients to sue 
farmers in North Carolina, in Kentucky, and other States. Paralegals 
were sent passing out brochures saying that you have these rights that 
need to be pursued in court. And not only that, but when they find 
these clients, they send threatening letters to farmers throughout my 
district in which they are saying, if you will pay $4,763 to one 
farmer, $14,289 that another farmer receives, $26,000, $65,000, 
$73,000, if you will pay this money, then we will not proceed in court.
  Now, a lot of these farmers do not believe that there is any legal 
basis to file the suit, so they defend themselves in suits filed in 
Kentucky, in Tennessee, in North Carolina, and in many cases, the local 
judges grant a summary judgment for the farmer. And then what happens? 
Well, then the legal aid lawyers go to Texas Federal court and they 
file lawsuits there.
  So when the farmers try to get it transferred to a Federal court in 
Kentucky or North Carolina, then the judges say, no, I am not going to 
transfer it. So then the farmers have to hire lawyers in Texas, they 
have to go to Texas for depositions, they have to go to Texas for 
lawsuits for the case to be tried, and it costs large sums of money, 
and many of them end up settling and some of them have even gone into 
bankruptcy because of this abuse.
  The sad thing about this is, many of the plaintiffs are not present 
in the U.S., even though the law specifically says, you must be present 
when the lawsuit is filed. And John McKay has repeatedly ignored that, 
has repeatedly disavowed that and has said, I will interpret the law 
the way I want to interpret it.
  Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong when we have a system that is 
taking tax dollars from hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers to have 
suits filed against them in violation of the law that is there. I 
realize we live in a particularly permissive society, but I hope we 
have not reached the point where we not only condone a Federal agency 
misleading Congress about its caseload, but we reward them when we 
discovered that they provided false testimony, and then we turn our 
head when we know that the agency is violating Federal law.
  Now, the President says he is going to veto this, and I would urge 
him if he does, I want to take him to Kentucky, Tennessee, North 
Carolina, and he can talk to the farmers about why he is vetoing it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation celebrates its 25th 
anniversary this year. For 25 years, legal services has provided 
critical legal aid to low-income people, including children, the 
elderly, and victims of domestic abuse. In those years, legal services 
has helped low-income Americans fight unjust eviction from their 
apartments, arbitrary government actions, and consumer fraud. And 
reflecting their level of concern for low-income Americans, the 
Republican leadership has slashed funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  The Republican leadership is prepared to give a $792 billion tax 
break to the rich. It is also trying to cut $159 million in legal aid 
to the poor. The other side of the aisle argues that those who pay 
little in taxes should get no tax relief, and some of them argue that 
those with little recourse to our legal system should get no legal aid, 
but not all of them. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and 
others who have spoken today have stood up for legal services and have 
stood up for the principle of equal justice under law.
  The bill before us cuts funding for the Legal Services Corporation in 
half. Mr. Chairman, with this cut, more than 250,000 families will be 
denied access to legal counsel in the courts, and there will be only 
one Legal Services Corporation for every 24,000 low-income Americans. 
This drastic cut to Legal Services funding will hurt hundreds of 
thousands of Americans, particularly those who live in rural areas, 
because legal services programs will have to close neighborhood offices 
and limit their services.
  I believe that claims that Legal Services is misrepresenting the 
number of people it has helped are vastly overstated and have been 
properly addressed, but it is the latest excuse for those who year 
after year after year after year come to this floor to do just what 
they are trying to do today and cut out legal aid for the poor.
  We should listen to the scores of businesses, religious 
organizations, seniors' groups and victims' advocacy groups that 
support the Legal Services Corporation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that legal services for the poor 
to help

[[Page 19501]]

ensure equal justice under law was a conservative ideal, an ideal 
rooted in our Constitution. I believe it is simply wrong to slam the 
courthouse doors shut on the poor simply because they do not have the 
money to obtain legal counsel.
  In Maine, one of the great advocates for legal services for the poor 
is a man named Howard Dana. He was appointed to the Legal Services 
Board, I believe, by President Reagan, and year after year after year 
in the 1980s he fought to make sure that the Legal Services Corporation 
remained in existence and was adequately funded. He was and remains a 
conservative Republican. As I said, this is a conservative ideal: equal 
justice under law. He is now a distinguished judge on the Maine Supreme 
Court, and I know he stands by the beliefs that he held as a member of 
the board.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember that although Legal 
Services attorneys may not be convenient, they may be inconvenient, for 
landlords, for corporations, and even for this government, 
inconvenience is no argument for subverting a fundamental principle of 
our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support the bi-
partisan Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment which would restore funding 
for the Legal Services Corporation. All Americans deserve equal justice 
under law, not just those who cannot afford it. Keep the courthouse 
door open for all Americans.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask unanimous 
consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be 
concluded in 30 minutes, and that the time be equally divided on either 
side of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the chairman, and we do 
not object.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, others have spoken here today about the improprieties 
or, some would say at the very least, the inconsistencies that we have 
seen in the caseload figures that have been provided by the Legal 
Services Corporation. Others have said, well, that is not really how 
they get their funding, they get it from the level of poverty that is 
found in each of the areas where legal services are provided.
  But the fact is, we have seen some wild variations in the caseloads, 
and we do know that the Inspector General and even the Chairman of the 
Legal Services Corporation, has himself acknowledged that there are 
tremendous discrepancies in the way caseloads these are reported.
  Now, some say it is because there are no real guidelines. Well, I 
believe the Board has a responsibility to promulgate those guidelines 
to make sure that it is clear so that we know what cases are being 
accepted or how they are being disposes of so that we can have 
consistent statistical data on which to make the judgment in the 
subcommittee that I serve on level of funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation.

                              {time}  1545

  We also heard the gentleman from California talk about how over the 
years Congress has had to take action against the Legal Services 
Corporation for meddling in areas where Congress has demonstrated clear 
legislative direction. Instead, too often the Legal Services 
Corporation has attempted not to implement legislative intent, but to 
block the actions of Congress. We heard about that most dramatically, 
in the memory of most of the Members of Congress, in the area of 
redistricting.
  I want to talk about another area where this is going on, legislation 
that we passed a few years ago dealing with migrant farm worker 
programs, and the very limited guest worker programs with foreign 
countries.
  These are very heavily constricted programs with a lot of 
regulations, a lot of rules which must be implemented in order to 
comply with them. They have to advertise; they have to show that there 
is no work force available.
  Even with all these hurdles to clear, what we have found is that 
Legal Services Corporation in almost every area and every State, has 
filed all kinds of actions to block any approval of these worker 
programs. The result is none, virtually none, have been approved. Less 
than 1 percent of the potential need for migrant workers, giving people 
jobs here in the United States to work, have actually been approved by 
the Labor Department. What we hear time and again from farm 
organizations is they just do not initiate the process because they 
know they are going to be blocked by the Legal Services Corporation.
  I want to finally discuss where the author proposes to find offsets 
for restoring this money to the Legal Services Corporation. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has told us the money does not 
really come out of the Border Patrol, that this is really a shift from 
one account to the other.
  I will acknowledge that this is true. But there is a definite cut in 
the National Instant Crime Check system for the FBI, there is a 
definite cut in the Federal prison system, and there is a definite cut 
in the judicial services.
  Mr. Chairman, these funds are absolutely vital in order to carry out 
the legal system for those who need it most. Who needs it most except 
those who are the most impoverished? If we do not have a judicial 
system that works to put criminals behind bars, who is going to suffer? 
Those who are the most poor. If we do not have a judicial system that 
has the staff to process cases, who is going to suffer? Those who are 
the most poor. If we do not have a system to do crime checks, who will 
be the victims of crime? Those who are the most poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we defeat this amendment. I urge that we 
keep the cuts that the committee has judiciously imposed on the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee for yielding time to me, and for bringing this 
excellent amendment to the House, which I strongly support.
  The Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment would avoid a devastating 53 
percent cut in Federal support for the Legal Services Corporation. This 
money is desperately needed in our communities, and we must support the 
Serrano amendment.
  I heard the majority leader speak, questioning the reliability of 
case statistics offered by the Legal Services Corporation. I would like 
to share with him and the House some case statistics from the Legal Aid 
Society of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where I come from.
  In 1995, they received about $300,000 in Federal money for their 
legal aid program. This year they are receiving under $200,000, a one-
third cut. If this bill goes through unamended, they will realize 
another $100,000 reduction in funding, so a two-thirds reduction from 
1995 in Federal support.
  This has a very real impact on the quality of legal services offered 
in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, as it obviously does in every 
county throughout this country. They have had to reduce their caseload 
in my county by over 250 cases out of a couple of thousand, and if 
these funds are further reduced, as the bill proposes, another 200 or 
300 cases will be reduced from their annual caseload.
  I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) talk about 
where are the States in volunteerism? In my county, the county 
commissioners have offered up more money as the Federal Government has 
reduced funding. The Bar Association has offered up money and pro bono 
time to

[[Page 19502]]

make up for Federal cuts. But they cannot take the place of the Federal 
money, and the caseloads are going down.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) said we should punish 
the bureaucrats. This is not about punishing bureaucrats. The 
bureaucrats will not be punished, it is the people that receive and 
need the legal services that will be punished. Who are these people? 
They are about two-thirds women: poor women; women that need help with 
protection from abuse cases; women that need help with consumer 
protection cases; women that need help with employment problems, 
financial problems, foreclosures. These are the people that the 
majority would punish if this bill is unamended and if the cuts are 
passed as the bill proposes.
  We have a principle in this country of equal justice for all. To 
achieve that, we need equal access for all to the courts. We must pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The Legal 
Services Corporation is important to assisting vulnerable people in our 
society. This is a little bit of what I will address.
  Women and children are among the vulnerable who, without assistance, 
often find themselves in abusive situations that they cannot control. 
The impact of these situations is significant, and it could well result 
in homelessness and the loss of necessary financial resources for food, 
maintenance, and health care.
  To give one example from my own district, which is Montgomery County, 
Maryland, as a result of domestic violence and in fear for her safety 
and that of her five children, a woman left her husband of 15 years. He 
had been the primary support for the family.
  She was able on her own to obtain housing, although it was neither 
decent nor safe. Still, because of her financial situation, she was 
threatened with eviction. Local legal services helped her to get 
Section 8 housing, and the family was able to relocate to decent 
housing with adequate space. This stabilized the family during a very 
disruptive and unsettling time.
  Millions of children are the victims of abuse from their parents and 
others who are responsible for their care. This abuse goes on somewhere 
in the country every minute of the day, and Legal Services in Maryland 
represents children who are neglected or abused, such as neglect or 
abuse which ranges from a child being left alone by a parent, not being 
provided a nutritional meal, to physical or sexual abuse that results 
in severe injury and, all too often, death.
  Legal Services has helped the infant that has been abandoned at 
birth, the child who is left unattended, the child who is beaten, 
burned by cigarette butts because he would not stop crying, or scalded 
by hot water to teach him a lesson. These children are vulnerable, and 
without the protection of the law they would be endangered and lost.
  Legal Services advocacy on behalf of children assures that they will 
not be the subject of abuse, and it helps to secure services for 
children, such as housing support, health care, food, educational 
programs, and necessary counseling.
  The work of Legal Services on behalf of families and children touches 
at the heart of what we value most in this country: decent housing, 
adequate health care, food, a safe environment. Because of the 
importance of safety in our society, Legal Services programs have 
supported legislation to prevent abuse and protect the abused.
  In general, the States are not allocating funds for civil legal 
services for poor citizens. Without this federally funded program, the 
most vulnerable members of our society will not have the ability to get 
inside the courtroom door to seek judicial protections of their rights. 
We must assure that sufficient funds are available. This amendment 
restores some of the amount that Legal Services needs, not even the 
total amount that could be used.
  I certainly urge support for this modest amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has been patiently waiting for over 2 hours to 
speak.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I, too, am offended by 
the false reports which are alluded to by my colleagues. It is 
repugnant that any agency should submit information to the government 
which is anything less than accurate.
  I can understand why some would be so offended about the abuses 
cited. However, I am even more offended by poverty, poverty which locks 
people out of opportunities for justice, poverty which humiliates 
people when they cannot be represented, poverty which makes people 
invisible when courts would take action in their absence; poverty which 
would deny the poor legal representation.
  How many of those who have been in this Chamber can imagine what it 
is like to need an attorney but have no access to help because one 
cannot afford it? Indeed, if a Member of Congress is subject to legal 
process in the performance of his or her duties, he or she will receive 
legal assistance from the Office of General Counsel at no cost. How 
could we deny those who we represent, who have much less recourse, how 
could we deny them access or claim to the resources of the country?
  Mr. Chairman, there is a level of condescension and condemnation of 
the poor and judgment which is inappropriate here, because this is not 
only about whether we will see full legal services for the poor and 
whether Legal Services for the poor will survive. Moments like this 
instruct us as to the health of our democracy and its ability to 
survive.
  At a time when Members of Congress are prepared to give 70 percent of 
a multi-billion dollar tax cut to the top 5 percent of the people who 
make over $200,000, this Congress should be more gentle with the have-
nots on such basic issues as legal representation.
  Somewhere in America there are poor and working poor who are 
concerned about whether they will have representation on issues of 
consumer debt, defective products, insurance coverage denial, 
assistance on family violence, eviction defense, illegal lockout 
defense, utility cutoff defense, housing discrimination defense, 
disability benefits defense.
  Legal Services is there for them, and this Congress ought to be here 
for Legal Services. The poor have a right to a decent legal 
representation. The poor already are at a disadvantage in all legal 
situations. They tend to lack education; they tend to lack knowledge of 
the system; they tend to be, because of the sting of poverty, a bit 
disorganized.
  We will be challenged by a higher test here, and which resonates with 
a very old question that was put forth about 2000 years ago: When I was 
hungry, did you feed me? When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I 
was thirsty, did you give me water?
  Let me add in that spirit, as we move towards the 21st century, when 
I was poor and I needed help, did you give me access to legal 
assistance? Let this Congress meet that test. Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  It seems to me that here we are once again, the same old wine with a 
new bottle; the same lemon, just a new twist; the same target, the 
poor, a new weapon: Take away not just legal representation, but take 
away hope, take away faith, take away belief in a system. Take away the 
idea that you, too, can receive justice, notwithstanding the size of 
your wallet or your pocketbook or your purse.
  There is a legal assistance office down the hall from my district 
office, and I see people go in with their heads

[[Page 19503]]

down, wondering what is going to happen. But then I see them turn 
around and leave, and they are walking differently. They now have hope. 
They have spoken with an attorney. They have spoken to someone who 
seemed to understand their plight, to know what they are going through, 
to know what it is all about.

                              {time}  1600

  I have seen people in Housing Court, no lawyer, no attorney, 
wondering what is going to happen. I have seen them in Juvenile Court. 
No attorney, no lawyer, not knowing.
  I say to my colleagues today that we have an opportunity to reverse a 
trend. Rather than attack the poor, let us give aid and comfort to the 
development of our judicial system by helping everybody in this country 
know that they, too, can receive justice. Let us vote in favor of the 
amendment and extend justice to all.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) for yielding me the time.
  I rise in support of the amendment which freezes Legal Services 
funding essentially from last year. But I rise more importantly in 
support of John McKay whose name has been taken in vain here today.
  John McKay is from my State, an excellent lawyer with a great 
background in history in our State. He decided to come out of private 
practice and come to Legal Services to head it up, to bring it back to 
its core mission. So I have taken a bit of concern and offense at 
people who have discredited John McKay.
  John McKay is a decent, honorable, certainly not a deceitful man. He 
is a good lawyer and good person trying to do a tough job.
  Now, Legal Services Corporation has its problems. It has had its 
problems in the past. It has allegations of problems today. John McKay 
is trying to fix those problems. He is not the cause of the problem. He 
is trying to fix them.
  So he is a good person with a tough mission, and we ought to help him 
accomplish that mission to bring this Legal Services Corporation 
nationally back to its core mission of helping people who are poor.
  In my State of Washington, the Legal Services Corporation is doing a 
fine job. I have had Justice Richard Guy of the Supreme Court come to 
my office. Attorney Bill Hislop, who is head of our Bar Association in 
Spokane, Washington; Jim Bamberger who has worked very hard for Legal 
Services; Nancy Islip, these are good people trying to make the core 
mission of Legal Services effective.
  I have had my problems with Legal Services. I have had good 
conversations with these people who are in charge in my State. I think 
they have been very responsive.
  The farm community is less burdened by the Legal Services Corporation 
practices of the past than they are today. That is progress. That is 
progress at the hands of John McKay.
  If one is poor in this country and one is hungry, our government 
provides one with food. One can get it immediately. If one does not 
have housing, the government helps one. But if one has legal problems, 
one cannot go to law school and get help.
  The Legal Services Corporation provides the poor with this kind of 
help, and we ought to insist on accommodation by this corporation, but 
we ought to support them.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this 
amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I 
represent a district in the San Joaquin Valley of California that, 
despite the good economic times in our State and our Nation, is plagued 
by 14 percent unemployment.
  I represent many people who are poor and, therefore, do not have the 
ability to access our judicial system. Their only option, oftentimes, 
is legal assistance through the Legal Services Corporation.
  Mr. Chairman, if a low-income elderly person is unfairly evicted from 
their home, if a young mother is unable to collect child support or is 
a victim of abuse and must go to the courts to intervene, they have no 
opportunity if they cannot afford legal representation.
  I find it somewhat ironic that the same week that this Congress will 
be considering a huge tax cut bill of almost $800 billion, that 
Republicans think is important to cut funding, or some Republicans 
think it is important for cut funding for one of the most important 
programs that assist the poorest of our citizens.
  The Legal Services Corporation fills our constitutional obligation to 
provide the poor with competent legal representation. Our country was 
founded on the principles of equal opportunity. If we turn our back on 
the poorest families and deny them access to due process, we are 
trampling on the principle of equal justice under the law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I understand that there have been 
some concerns about the offsets to pay for this change. Whenever we 
have a bill that is as difficult as this one, it is very difficult to 
come up with offsets. I certainly understand the concern about those 
offsets.
  However, those offsets, as we know, are not cast in stone right now. 
I commit myself to all of those Members, especially my ranking member, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that I will continue to work 
with the chairman to make sure that the offsets later on and in 
conference are acceptable to as many people as possible.
  But I repeat, it is very difficult to come up with this kind of a 
change, this kind of an amendment and, at the same time, be able to 
come up with offsets that will make people happy.
  Having said that, let me just say that so many of the speakers today 
have spoken the truth; that, if there is a program, if there is an 
agency, if there is a concept that speaks to the core of who we are as 
a Nation, it is the Legal Services Corporation.
  To suggest that someone under our system of law and our system of 
government cannot get the proper help, the proper representation simply 
because they are poor, that is outrageous, should not be tolerated, and 
should never be brought up at all.
  Sure, there have been problems with that agency at times. There have 
been problems with every single agency. But we have not decided to get 
rid of all agencies we have problems with. My God, there have been 
problems with Congress, and no one would suggest getting rid of 
Congress. Although there are some people who suggest getting rid of 
Congress, but we are not going to pay attention to them.
  My point is that what we do best in our society, in my opinion, is to 
help those who find it difficult to help themselves. All of us want to 
take care of the middle class. All of us want to keep our economy 
growing so that people at the top can hopefully generate some wealth 
for the rest of the Nation.
  But if one cannot walk into court with proper representation because 
one is too poor to do so, and this Congress is somehow responsible for 
that happening to that person, then we have a lot to be ashamed of.
  This is an issue that comes up every year; and every year, people on 
that side of the aisle try to destroy this program. This program should 
not have been funded at this level. I should have been able to find $50 
million more, maybe $100 million more to cover the people that are 
needed.
  But story after story after story indicates that this is a program 
that serves the have-nots in our society. They are the people that we 
have to protect.
  As I look at the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and I see 
behind him our flag, I realize how many

[[Page 19504]]

times we get up on this floor on amendments to protect the physical 
well-being of the flag. Well, I suspect that the flag stands for more 
than itself. It stands for taking care of all Americans.
  I think if that flag could speak to us today, it would tell us that 
we need to take care of the poor. In this case, that is what we are 
doing. That is why I think my colleagues should support this amendment, 
and this amendment should not be about a partisan fight. It should be a 
bipartisan effort.
  Let us do what is right. Let us support the amendment and give us a 
very strong vote.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. Cutting 
the funding of the Legal Services Corporation to $141 million would be 
a disaster for families living in poverty across this nation.
  Legal Services attorneys deserve our thanks. They help our poorest 
and most vulnerable citizens navigate the complicated bureaucracy of 
our court system in search of justice and fairness.
  Many of my colleagues may not think of Legal Services as a women's 
issue, but it is. More than two-thirds of the clients served by Legal 
Services are women. The funding cuts in this bill will force Legal 
Services to abandon many of the critical legal services that it 
provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past 25 years, Legal Services have held the 
courthouse doors open to clients seeking legal protection from abusive 
spouses. In fact, family law--which includes domestic violence cases--
makes up over one-third of the cases handled by legal services programs 
each year.
  In addition to helping domestic violence victims, the lawyers at the 
Legal Services Corporation help poor women to enforce child support 
orders against dead-beat dads. They also help women with employment 
discrimination cases.
  Slashing funding for Legal Services means barring the door of the 
courthouse for tens of thousands of women who have nowhere else to turn 
for help.
  As the Legal Services Corporation celebrates its 25th Anniversary, we 
must not abandon these women to violence and abuse and greater poverty. 
Please support Legal Services, protect poor families and vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, it is with very strong reservations that 
I support Mr. Ramstad's amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act that restores $109 
million in funding to the Legal Services Corporation.
  As a practicing attorney in Georgia for over two decades, I had the 
opportunity to view firsthand the multitude of services provided by 
public legal services personnel throughout my state. While I have been 
critical at times of the Georgia Legal Services Program, they do 
provide indigent citizens of my state needed legal services.
  While I support the legal services provided to the indigent by the 
hard working men and women of programs like the Georgia Legal Services 
Program, I rise today to register my deep dissatisfaction on the 
actions of individuals within the Legal Services Corporation.
  Last year on October 21, Congress approved $300 million for the Legal 
Services Corporation, a $17 million increase that I supported. At the 
time of this vote, Congress was relying on the accuracy of legal 
services case statistics provided by the Corporation. As a result of 
subsequent audits and investigations, it is evident that for months 
prior to this vote Corporation officials knew that the case numbers 
given to Congress were both false and inflated, deliberately 
withholding that information from Congress. This is absolutely 
inexcusable and those providing false information to Congress should be 
fired immediately.
  With regard to the serious mismanagement at the Legal Services 
Corporation, I would like to associate myself with the report of the 
Appropriations Committee. In their report to accompany H.R. 2670, the 
Committee raised serious concerns about the case service reporting and 
associated data reports submitted annually by the Corporation to the 
Congress. Additionally, the Committee found that substantial 
inaccuracies in these submissions, as documented by the Corporation's 
Office of Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, and 
directed the Corporation to make improvement of the accuracy of these 
submissions a top priority.
  To continue receiving my support and provide assurances that the 
Corporation is proactively addressing its problems, I support the 
Committee's directive that the Corporation submit its 1999 annual case 
service reports and associated data reports to Congress no later than 
April 30, 2000 in order to provide my colleagues with the information 
necessary to consider the Corporation's budget for fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment to restore $109 million in funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation. But even with this increase, there would only be $250 
million available for LSC programs across the country. This would still 
be insufficient to meet our needs across the country, but it is a step 
in the right direction.
  Even with this year's funding level of $283 million, Legal Services' 
resources are over-extended. We must send a more positive signal to the 
dedicated staff who stretch every dollar to provide basic legal 
services for the poor.
  Many of our legal protections today came from the cases made possible 
by Legal Services. Protections such as due process, voting rights, 
property rights, women's rights, and many other areas came from Legal 
Services Corporation litigation. On a day to day basis, Legal Aid 
bureaus across the country help ensure that individuals have access to 
the most basic legal services.
  In today's society, whenever a single person's rights are violated, 
everyone is in danger. To guard against such infringement, people need 
competent and timely legal advice. For the less fortunate, this is no 
different. LSC affords them the ability to protect their rights just as 
anyone else.
  What are we construing here? Voting rights, employment right, access 
to education, freedom from discrimination, due process . . . the list 
goes on. What price tag can we put on these most precious commodities 
of our democracy?
  I urge my colleagues to raise the level of LSC funding. I ask my 
colleagues to vote their CJS pocketbook for freedom.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there are no further speakers on this side 
of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               AYES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy

[[Page 19505]]


     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bilbray
     Cox
     Cramer
     Jefferson
     John
     Lantos
     Largent
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Shaw
     Slaughter
     Stenholm
     Tanner

                              {time}  1627

  Mr. DICKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. STARK, HOUGHTON, and BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 370, I was unavoidable 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, on Roll No. 370, the Serrano amendment to 
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (H.R. 2670), I intended to 
vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York Mr. Engel for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member of the 
subcommittee, along with the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers).
  Mr. Chairman, today I wish to express my support for the New York 
Botanical Garden. The district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and mine encompass a large portion of the Bronx in New York. 
The New York Botanical Garden has been located in my district. It is 
currently located in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) which borders mine.
  Mr. Chairman, those who have been to New York know that the Botanical 
Garden is considered by many to be the jewel of the Bronx as well as an 
institution renowned for its support and development of advanced 
research and graduate studies in plant biology.
  I, along with 17 of my colleagues from New York, have urgently 
requested that $5 million be appropriated for construction of a new 
plant studies research laboratory at the New York Botanical Garden. The 
Botanical Garden is currently recognized as a premier institution in 
botanical research in the United States.
  The facility which houses advanced botanical studies laboratories, 
however, has become obsolete. A new facility is desperately needed to 
continue to attract top scientists and researchers from around the 
world.
  As I am sure the chairman and ranking member are aware, $1 million 
has been included in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill of 
the Senate. I urge them to maintain or increase this level of funding 
during the conference committee.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for 
expressing his support for the Botanical Garden and want to assure him 
that funding for the new facility is of high importance to me.
  The Botanical Garden has been instrumental in maintaining our place 
as a world leader in plant research. Without this new plant research 
facility, the Botanical Garden may lose its preeminent status in 
botanical studies, forcing many of its scientists and scholars to 
conduct that research in countries with adequate facilities.
  I want to reassure my colleague from New York that maintaining or 
increasing the $1 million in the Senate appropriations bill for the new 
plant studies research laboratory is of the highest priority with this 
Member.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the interest of the two 
gentlemen, including the ranking minority member. I will be pleased to 
work with them as we go through this.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Radiation Exposure Compensation


                        administrative expenses

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


           SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

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

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

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

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 1,648 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 1,523 will be for replacement only, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance,

[[Page 19506]]

     and operation of aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be 
     expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General, 
     $2,357,015,000; of which not to exceed $50,000,000 for 
     automated data processing and telecommunications and 
     technical investigative equipment and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2001; of which not less than $292,473,000 
     shall be for counterterrorism investigations, foreign 
     counterintelligence, and other activities related to our 
     national security; of which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; of which not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for making 
     advances for expenses arising out of contractual or 
     reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement 
     agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug 
     investigations; and of which not less than $59,429,000 shall 
     be for the costs of conversion to narrowband communications, 
     and for the operations and maintenance of legacy Land Mobile 
     Radio systems: Provided, That such amount shall be 
     transferred to and administered by the Department of Justice 
     Wireless Management Office: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $45,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That no funds in 
     this Act may be used to provide ballistics imaging equipment 
     to any State or local authority which has obtained similar 
     equipment through a Federal grant or subsidy unless the State 
     or local authority agrees to return that equipment or to 
     repay that grant or subsidy to the Federal Government.
       In addition, $752,853,000 for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended, 
     and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
     1996.


                              construction

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

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be 
     expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; 
     expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to 
     exceed 1,358 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,079 will be 
     for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; $932,000,000, of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for 
     research shall remain available until expended, and of which 
     not to exceed $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and 
     payments for information, not to exceed $10,000,000 for 
     contracting for automated data processing and 
     telecommunications equipment, and not to exceed $2,000,000 
     for laboratory equipment, $4,000,000 for technical equipment, 
     and $2,000,000 for aircraft replacement retrofit and parts, 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2001; of which not 
     to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and of which not less than 
     $20,733,000 shall be for the costs of conversion to 
     narrowband communications and for the operations and 
     maintenance of legacy Land Mobile Radio systems: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be transferred to and administered by 
     the Department of Justice Wireless Management Office.
       In addition, $344,250,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                              construction

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

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration and 
     enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, 
     naturalization, and alien registration, as follows:


                     enforcement and border affairs

       For salaries and expenses for the Border Patrol program, 
     the detention and deportation program, the intelligence 
     program, the investigations program, and the inspections 
     program, including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
     type use (not to exceed 3,075 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which 2,266 are for replacement only), without regard to the 
     general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; acquisition, 
     lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; research 
     related to immigration enforcement; for protecting and 
     maintaining the integrity of the borders of the United States 
     including, without limitation, equipping, maintaining, and 
     making improvements to the infrastructure; and for the care 
     and housing of Federal detainees held in the joint 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service and United States 
     Marshals Service's Buffalo Detention Facility, 
     $1,130,030,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for costs associated with the training program for 
     basic officer training, and $5,000,000 is for payments or 
     advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     immigration; of which not to exceed $5,000,000 is to fund or 
     reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs associated 
     with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled 
     illegal aliens; and of which not less than $18,510,000 shall 
     be for the costs of conversion to narrowband communications 
     and for the operations and maintenance of legacy Land Mobile 
     Radio systems: Provided, That such amount shall be 
     transferred to and administered by the Department of Justice 
     Wireless Management Office: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds available to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service shall be available to pay any employee overtime pay 
     in an amount in excess of $30,000 during the calendar year 
     beginning January 1, 2000: Provided further, That uniforms 
     may be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act 
     shall be used for the continued operation of the San Clemente 
     and Temecula checkpoints unless the checkpoints are open and 
     traffic is being checked on a continuous 24-hour basis.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

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

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for 
I know what is their continuing interest in the immigration and 
naturalization services.
  I indicated that I had two amendments. I would like to speak to the 
amendment dealing with the border patrol.
  All of us suffered through the tragedy of the Resendez-Ramirez case 
in which it was tragically found that he had the opportunity to pass 
through the border patrol a number of times and was not detected at 
that time.
  The amendment that I am offering will add $3.7 million to the 
Enforcement and Border Affairs Account, monies coming out of the 
Federal Bureaus of Prisons Building and Construction Fund, which had 
$558 million, $147 million above fiscal year 1999.
  This amendment would increase the starting salary level of border 
patrol agents from GS-5 to GS-7 level. I have just learned that the 
U.S. Border Patrol agents are also not up to staff.
  As this subcommittee well knows, as this body well knows, the 1996 
immigration law authorized a total of 5,000 additional border patrol 
agents to be added at a rate of 1,000 per fiscal year from 1997 to 
2001.
  INS did not request any additional agents in its proposed budget for 
FY 2000. This is greatly due to the lucrative job market that finds 
great difficulty in the recruitment and the ability to employ these 
individuals.

[[Page 19507]]

  The concern is, of course, that in not being able to compete in this 
market, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the DEA, the FBI, and other law 
enforcement agencies, even local law enforcement agencies, have a 
higher salary than the starting GS-5 border patrol agent, which starts 
in at a level of $22,000 a year.
  Therefore, after speaking with budget analysis, we have offered an 
additional $3.7 million to increase the starting salary from GS-5 level 
to GS-7, which will be slightly over $30,000.
  We keep hearing about not being able to hire. We know the frustration 
of so many of our Members. We heard the pain of the tragedy of 
Resendez-Ramirez. Now we are facing an opportunity to do something, 
along with the Senate, which is also looking to do the same thing, to 
give the INS the opportunity to reach in a larger pool by increasing 
the salary to help these individuals be more competitive in being able 
to support their families.
  I ask my colleagues to support this. I believe we have from the CBO a 
statement regarding the compliance with the CBO.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this has little impact on the outlay 
and, as well, has little impact on the budget authorizations. So I 
would ask that we recognize the difficulty that the INS has had.
  I am not here as an apologizer for the INS. I am simply here to say 
that we have heard so much about not being able to recruit INS 
officers, border patrol officers, and there is a great need on the 
northern border and on the southern border.
  We heard testimony in our committee there is a great need for 
increasing these numbers. We must get the ability to the INS to provide 
higher salaries to be able to compete in today's market.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             point of order

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

                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the 
gentleman from Kentucky, I appreciate the response of the gentleman, I 
appreciate his interest in the INS, that I noted that there had been 
several amendments made in order by the majority that had points of 
order and were waived.
  Mr. Chairman, in this instance, I am speaking particularly to the 
gentleman from Kentucky, he may not have heard testimony, but he knows 
that I did come to his committee. We had testimony in the Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims on which I serve as the ranking member 
begging us for the ability to provide more border patrol agents. The 
gentleman from Kentucky in his good graces with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) and others have provided resources, but they have 
not been able to be utilized by the INS because those salaries are 
keeping them from competing with other law enforcement agencies, even 
local law enforcement agencies at higher salaries. I would just offer 
for the good of our borders to provide for well-trained border patrol 
agents, this movement would give us the ability to have those with 
college degrees, associate degrees and above, and give us the ability 
to provide the numbers of people we need at the northern border.
  I would ask, Mr. Chairman, in this instance that we have, because of 
the crucial nature, because of the tragedy of the Resendez-Ramirez 
case, that in looking at the outlays that we have the ability to waive 
the point of order, and I would ask that that occur.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in response let me say the problem is that 
this puts us over our allocation. It is not a question of whether I 
want to do it or not, it is a question of whether or not it is legal. 
The gentlewoman's amendment simply puts us over our allocation. Under 
the rules, we simply cannot do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members wish to be heard on the point? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays 
in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address 
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment is therefore not in 
order at this point in the reading. The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


  citizenship and benefits, immigration support and program direction

       For all programs of the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service not included under the heading ``Enforcement and 
     Border Affairs'', $535,011,000, of which not to exceed 
     $400,000 for research shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That the Attorney General may transfer any funds 
     appropriated under this heading and the heading ``Enforcement 
     and Border Affairs'' between said appropriations 
     notwithstanding any percentage transfer limitations imposed 
     under this appropriation Act and may direct such fees as are 
     collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
     the activities funded under this heading and the heading 
     ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' for performance of the 
     functions for which the fees legally may be expended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed 38 permanent positions 
     and 38 full-time equivalent workyears and $3,909,000 shall be 
     expended for the Offices of Legislative Affairs and Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices shall not be augmented by personnel details, 
     temporary transfers of personnel on either a reimbursable or 
     non-reimbursable basis, or any other type of formal or 
     informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or funds on 
     either a temporary or long-term basis: Provided further, That 
     the number of positions filled through non-career appointment 
     at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for which 
     funding is provided in this Act or is otherwise made 
     available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     shall not exceed 4 permanent positions and 4 full-time 
     equivalent workyears: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     shall be used to pay an employee overtime pay in an amount in 
     excess of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 
     1, 2000: Provided further, That funds may be used, without 
     limitation, for equipping, maintaining, and making 
     improvements to the infrastructure and the purchase of 
     vehicles for police type use within the limits of the 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs appropriation: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2000, the Attorney General is authorized 
     and directed to impose disciplinary action, including 
     termination of employment, pursuant to policies and 
     procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, for any employee of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service who violates policies and procedures 
     set forth by the Department of Justice relative to the 
     granting of citizenship or who willfully deceives the 
     Congress or department leadership on any matter.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

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

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

[[Page 19508]]

       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,600,000)''.

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page 19509]]

with the INS. I know all the work the gentleman from New York has done. 
If we can work together as we move this bill toward conference, I would 
greatly appreciate it. I think it would release a lot of us from the 
horrible pressures of the caseload that we have of such tragedies, of 
people not being able to have their cases adjudicated who are doing it 
legally. That is what we want to support, legal immigration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    violent crime reduction programs

       In addition, $1,267,225,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund: Provided, That the Attorney 
     General may use the transfer authority provided under the 
     heading ``Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support and 
     Program Direction'' to provide funds to any program of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service that heretofore has 
     been funded by the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                              construction

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping, and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $90,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no funds shall be available 
     for the site acquisition, design, or construction of any 
     Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector.

                         Federal Prison System


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 708, of which 
     602 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments, $3,082,004,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with 
     a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $6,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $90,000,000 shall remain available for necessary operations 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That, of the 
     amounts provided for Contract Confinement, not to exceed 
     $20,000,000 shall remain available until expended to make 
     payments in advance for grants, contracts and reimbursable 
     agreements, and other expenses authorized by section 501(c) 
     of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, 
     for the care and security in the United States of Cuban and 
     Haitian entrants: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     section 4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 
     353(d)), FPS may enter into contracts and other agreements 
     with private entities for periods of not to exceed 3 years 
     and 7 additional option years for the confinement of Federal 
     prisoners.
       In addition, $22,524,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling, and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and 
     equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing 
     penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary 
     expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account, 
     $558,791,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be available to construct 
     areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That labor of 
     United States prisoners may be used for work performed under 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and 
     Facilities'' in this Act or any other Act may be transferred 
     to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison System, upon 
     notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of 
     this Act.


                federal prison industries, incorporated

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


   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,490,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           justice assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, $143,436,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as amended.
       In addition, for grants, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by sections 819, 821, and 822 of the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 
     $74,000,000, to remain available until expended.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''), $1,629,500,000 to remain available until 
     expended; of which $523,000,000 shall be for Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by 
     the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, except 
     that for purposes of this Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico shall be considered a ``unit of local government'' as 
     well as a ``State'', for the purposes set forth in paragraphs 
     (A), (B), (D), (F), and (I) of section 101(a)(2) of H.R. 728 
     and for establishing crime prevention programs involving 
     cooperation between community residents and law enforcement 
     personnel in order to control, detect, or investigate crime 
     or the prosecution of criminals: Provided, That no funds 
     provided under this heading may be used as matching funds for 
     any other Federal grant program: Provided further, That 
     $40,000,000 of this amount shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs 
     in public housing facilities and other areas in cooperation 
     with State and local law enforcement: Provided further, That 
     funds may also be used to defray the costs of indemnification 
     insurance for law enforcement officers: Provided further, 
     That $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     102(2) of H.R. 728; of which $420,000,000 shall be for the 
     State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, as authorized by 
     section 242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended; and of which $686,500,000 shall be for Violent 
     Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive 
     Grants pursuant to subtitle A of title II of the 1994 Act, of 
     which $165,000,000 shall be available for payments to States 
     for incarceration of criminal aliens, and of which 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the Cooperative Agreement 
     Program.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

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

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

[[Page 19510]]

     dollar amount (relating to grants for residential substance 
     abuse treatment for State prisoners), insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $37,300,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--violent crime reduction programs, state and local 
     law enforcement assistance'', after the eighteenth dollar 
     amount (relating to drug courts), insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

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

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the truth in sentencing funds, which 
only about half of the States even qualify for, can only be spent for 
prison construction. At this point some States have already overbuilt 
their prison space, and my own State of Virginia is trying to lease out 
space to other States in the Federal Government of about 3,200 excess 
prison beds. There is no reason for us to provide funds to build prison 
beds that States do not need.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, States are already spending tens of 
billions of dollars on prison construction, so the entire fund of $300 
million spread out among the few States that actually qualify cannot 
possibly make any measurable difference in the number of prison beds 
built, much less have an overall effect on the crime rate. But if that 
money is targeted to crime prevention and treatment programs, we can 
make a significant difference on crime.
  Mr. Chairman, this truth-in-sentencing policy is a poor policy to 
begin with. The so-called truth is actually only half truth in 
sentencing because the half truth is that those who are subjected to 
the truth in sentencing cannot get out early. The whole truth is that 
others cannot be held longer either. Virginia changed to 1\1/2\ to 10 
year sentence where the average served was 2\1/2\ years to a sentence 
where everyone served 5 years. They doubled the average time served. 
The low-risk prisoners cannot get out early, but the high-risk 
prisoners that could not make parole and could have been held for 10 
years cannot be held longer either.
  Mr. Chairman, another problem with the truth in sentencing is the 
absence of parole eligibility, eliminates a major incentive the 
prisoners have to qualify for education and job training programs. They 
lose their incentive, they do not have to tell the parole board 
anything, and so they are more likely to come out as dumb, as 
untrained, as they went in. Education and job training are two of the 
major components in crime reduction, of recidivism. It is such poor 
policy, Mr. Chairman, that 23 States did not even ask for money in last 
year's budget, and so we have a situation where the money could be 
spent much better.
  The Conference on Juvenile Justice has just begun, and we can make a 
commitment to reduce crime by passing this amendment. This amendment 
would increase funding for building and running boys and girls clubs, 
in public housing and in sites for at-risk youth by $50 million. Boys 
and girls clubs have been shown through study and research to be cost-
effective ways of reducing crime for at-risk youth.
  The amendment also provides for an additional $37 million for 
residential drug treatment for prisoners before they are released and 
approximately $90 million for drug courts. Both prison drug treatment 
and drug courts have been shown to significantly reduce crime at a 
lower cost than just simply jailing drug addicts.
  So this amendment would not only reduce crime, it will reduce the 
amount of money that we spend. So let us show our commitment to 
reducing crime in this country by passing this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Either the gentleman's amendment is not drafted properly or he 
intends to cut the local law enforcement block grant by 50 million, and 
that is a program that is critical to our State and local law 
enforcements' fight to reduce crime. The amendment cuts the funds 
available for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, State prison 
grants, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), by 20 
percent; and the Committee has received numerous letters by our 
colleagues' governors, their State prosecutors, their State prison 
officials, supporting the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant that it 
refers to be cut here, and the Truth-in-Sentencing grants and SCAAP, 
which this amendment cuts.
  Convicted felons, Mr. Chairman, serve only 38 percent of their 
sentences on average. Truth-in-Sentencing grants, which this would cut, 
which require violent offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences, 
are a vital and sensible response to the problem that we face.
  While there may be several reasons for the recent drop in violent 
crime, the fact remains, prison works. The simple fact is that prisons 
incapacitate offenders. Incarceration, unlike probation or parole, 
makes it impossible for offenders to victimize the public as long as 
they are locked up. Historic figures show that after incarceration 
rates have increased crime rates have moderated, and I would submit to 
my colleagues that is exactly the case we face today as America right 
now is enjoying the lowest violent crime rate in recordkeeping history.
  On the other hand, imprisonment is actually used less frequently than 
are alternative sanctions. On any given day, seven offenders are on the 
street for every three who are behind bars. In 1991, 45 percent of 
State prisoners were on probation or parole at the time they committed 
their last crime. Together these parole and probation violators 
committed 90,639 violent crimes while under supervision in the 
community. That is 13,100 murders, 12,900 rapes, 19,300 assaults, and 
39,500 committed by people on parole or probation. In 1992, over 40 
percent of persons on death row were on probation, parole, or pretrial 
release at the time they committed the murder for which they are now on 
death row.
  The lack of prison space is a national problem. When we passed the 
legislation in 1995, only 12 States were Truth-in-Sentencing States. By 
the end of 1998, 27 States and the District of Columbia required 
violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison 
sentences. Another 13 States have adopted Truth-in-Sentencing laws 
requiring violent offenders to serve a substantial portion of their 
sentence before being eligible for release.
  The need for additional prison capacity remains. While some States 
may have excess prison capacity, other States are a long way from 
reducing their overcrowding problem, and I suspect the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime who I 
am sure will speak momentarily, will elucidate on these points.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment, 
although it has a worthy goal of increasing funding for certain 
programs, unfortunately would cut the programs that are working in 
bringing down violent and other crimes in the country, and I would urge 
the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, and I do so with all 
due respect to the gentleman who offered it who is a good friend and 
has served on this committee with me and the Subcommittee on Crime for 
quite some time and is the ranking member. I know he has offered this 
same proposal now, I think, 4 years in a row; and he genuinely does not 
believe in the purpose or the usefulness of these grants that are going 
out under the truth in sentencing, but I must say that it has been 
remarkable in my judgment, and I think the judgment of most who have

[[Page 19511]]

looked at this, how successful these truth-in-sentencing grants have 
been.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has indicated, we now 
have seen a dramatic increase in the number of States that have adopted 
the 85 percent rule over where they were just a few years ago when we 
started this incentive grant program to help States build the prison 
spaces they need in order to be able to house violent repeat offenders. 
At one time I think there were only 6 or 7 states when we started this 
program that had the 85 percent rule requiring one to serve at least 
that percentage of their sentence then.
  In just about every State they are going through the revolving doors. 
We now have about 40 States that are engaged in activities to increase 
the sentencing at least towards the goal of 85 percent of receiving 
some money under this program. I believe I am correct in saying that 31 
or 32 States that have actually achieved the objective and are now 
requiring their violent repeat felons to serve at least 85 percent of 
their sentences, and this is a major factor in the reduction in the 
rate of violent crime in this country the last couple of years. Very 
clearly that is the case.
  We certainly do not want to jeopardize that; we do not want to 
reverse that.
  Now we have far too many crimes every year being committed in this 
country. I think we used to have about 165 back in 1960, 165 violent 
crimes for every 100,000 people in our population. That went up to 680 
or so a few years ago, and now it is down to the lowly amount of 611 
violent crimes for every 100,000 people in our population, way too 
high; but this is the right direction it is trending, and the truth-in-
sentencing grant program to the States to help them build prison beds 
in return for requiring this longer sentence to be served is an 
integral and important reason why that is so.
  Now I am all for boys and girls clubs, and I am all for drug 
treatment and for drug courts. This legislation provides $40 million up 
from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 for boys and girls clubs. It 
provides $63 million for the drug treatment programs, the same level as 
last year. It provides $40 million for drug courts, up from $30 million 
in the last fiscal year. And so while the causes that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) advocates that the money be placed towards in 
lieu of the truth-in-sentencing grants are all causes which everyone in 
this Congress supports, they are not underfunded.
  We need to find balance in this program, and we need to have a common 
sense approach to this, and no one is arguing that incarceration alone 
is the answer. Community-based prevention programs such as prison drug 
testing and meaningful work opportunities for inmates are just a few of 
the additional efforts that need to be done.
  But this amendment, as I said earlier, has been offered four times in 
a row, four different occasions for an appropriations bill. 
Fortunately, it has been defeated each time, and I would urge my 
colleagues to defeat it again this time. We need to continue this 
successful truth-in-sentencing program, not interrupt it; and I urge a 
no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I hold here in my hand a copy of a letter 
from 34 of our Nation's Governors who are urging us not to cut this 
program, and I would submit that for the Record, if the gentleman would 
like.

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

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

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

     Hon. Jose Serrano,
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
         the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: We are writing to ask you to restore 
     funding for FY 2000 for the Violent Offender Incarceration/
     Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Prison Construction Grant 
     Program at the FY 1999 level without offsets, set-asides or 
     earmarks.
       Relying on the incentives in VOI/TIS, most of our states 
     have adopted longer sentences for violent crimes and 
     instituted other changes to ensure that the actual time 
     served by violent offenders is consistent with their 
     sentences. We all have projects in various stages of planning 
     and implementation, which depend upon VOI/TIS being funded 
     through FY 2000.
       These funds are vital to states' efforts to get violent 
     offenders off our nation's streets and to keep them off 
     longer. We believe the reduction in violent crime rates that 
     has occurred in the last few years is partly because repeat 
     violent offenders are being taken off and kept off the 
     streets in record numbers--due in no small part to the impact 
     of the VOI/TIS State Prison Construction Grant Program.
       However, the number of violent offenders coming into our 
     prisons, combined with those being held for longer period of 
     time, continue to make our violent offender prison 
     populations rise. These offenders are also more costly to 
     house and manage securely. Reliable statistical projections 
     by prudent state planners--as well as the U.S. Department of 
     Justice--indicate it will be well into the next decade before 
     population figures for violent offenders level out. The job 
     of getting the maximum feasible number of violent offenders 
     off the streets for longer periods of time has not been 
     finished.
       We appreciate the leadership you have demonstrated in 
     establishing and funding the VOI/TIS program and for the many 
     other ways in which your committees have supported state and 
     local efforts to fight crime. However, we are deeply 
     concerned about the elimination of VOI/TIS funding and urge 
     you to restore VOI/TIS funds at the FY 1999 level for FY 
     2000.
       Your consideration is deeply appreciated.
           Sincrely,
                                   (Signed by 34 State Governors.)

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

[[Page 19512]]

fights crime. It is an amendment that in fact speaks to exactly what 
some of my colleagues have been speaking about and that we are all so 
proud of that is happening in this country, and I think that rather 
than just react to it automatically, the way we always do, we should 
look at it for what it is worth, and it is worth a lot and we should be 
supportive of it.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment and want to 
applaud my colleague for bringing this amendment forward again this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who have voted against the amendment in the 
past, they may have done it because they thought they needed more 
prisons. But understand that the crime rate in most States is down and 
the need for more prison space is down, so that even for those people 
who supported this program from which the funds would be transferred in 
the past, who thought they had a rational basis for it, in many 
communities jail construction and prison construction has just become 
an employment program now.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure Members that the places to which the 
money is being transferred under this amendment would employ people 
also. So we are down to a choice between whether we build some more 
prisons, which are not needed, even if you think being harder on crime 
is important and has played an effective role in reducing crime. Once 
that effective role is played, then you eliminate the need for the 
money to have additional prison space, because during the time when the 
crime rate was on the incline, going up, we built a lot of prison beds 
and prison space in this country, and now that the crime rate is going 
down, we have got more than we really need. So we cannot even justify 
it, even if you claim to prefer to be hard on crime.
  In fact, it would be better if you did not support these prevention 
programs to which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is proposing 
to transfer the money. It would actually be better to just void the 
program out and put the money in debt reduction than it would be to 
continue to spend the money on a program serving no useful purpose.
  But that is not what I am advocating. I am advocating transferring 
the funds, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has proposed in 
his amendment.
  Now, why am I doing that? First of all, the gentleman is transferring 
$50 million of the funds to the Boys and Girls Programs. Why do we want 
to do that? Because what we understand is that the period of time from 
the time that kids get out of school to the time that these working 
parents who have to work to sustain this economic boom that we are 
having, unemployment is down and jobs are up so more people are 
working, the time that most of the crime occurs among young people in 
this country is the period between the end of school and the time that 
their parents come home.
  When is the most effective time and the most need for the Boys and 
Girls Club? What purpose do they serve? They fill this time void 
between the end of school and the time that their parents come home 
with constructive, important activities that are very positive, and 
that is why this program is so successful and so much needed.
  It transfers $37.3 million to the prison drug treatment program. Now, 
why does the gentleman do that? Because, again, this is an effective 
program. What we have been doing is putting people in jail because of 
drug use or drug sales. They go in the jail with a drug habit, and they 
serve their time and they come right back out, still addicted to drugs, 
with no drug treatment while they were in prison. We had a captive 
audience of people who were addicted, and we did nothing about it 
during that period of time.
  One of the most cost effective things we could do is to treat people 
while we have them as a captive audience.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will wrap-up. I just want 
to address this third thing that we are doing with the money under the 
Scott amendment. The gentleman is transferring $50 million to the Drug 
Court Program.
  Now, I can tell you, because I have a Drug Court in my Congressional 
District, I have several Drug Courts in my Congressional District, and 
what they are doing is they are intervening with people who come in to 
the court system for drug offenses and they are being proactive with 
them. They are identifying the problems they have of addiction. They 
are getting them into treatment programs. They are making sure that 
when somebody comes into that drug program, the Drug Court, they are 
not processed through the system without having their problem dealt 
with. So what you see is this reduced recidivism, which, again, has 
contributed to the reduction in crime and the reduced need for prison 
space.
  This is just a wonderful, good amendment, and we all ought to be 
supportive of it. I urge my colleagues to support this wonderful 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

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

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 
minutes. I simply want to acknowledge the importance of programs that 
will help our youth. They are important in my district, they are 
important across the Nation. This $2 million will help enhance 
substance abuse programs for our young people, which we know is 
devastating. Our young people are out abusing alcohol, they are abusing 
drugs.
  If we are going to invest in the future of our young people, this $2 
million will help spread an additional opportunity for inner cities, 
rural communities and all throughout the Nation to provide programs for 
our young people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this Appropriation bill 
that will increase some of the funding for juvenile justice programs 
within the Department of Justice. Specifically, my amendment adds $2 
million to the Demonstration Project grants that are designed to reduce 
drug use among our youth. Currently, these project grants are funded at 
$10 million.
  Although $10 million is a considerable amount for these programs, I 
feel that this issue is so important that we should add an additional 
$2 million. The offset for this funding increase would come from the 
Federal Prison funding for Buildings and Facilities.
  The Administration requested additional funds for the juvenile 
justice programs administered by the Justice Department, but the 
funding remained the same from FY 1999. This amendment increases the 
funding to the level that was requested by the Administration.
  We must increase the amount of funding for programs that reduce drug 
use among our young people because drug use has increased dramatically 
in this decade. Since 1992, marijuana use has doubled, going from 3.4 
percent to 7.1 percent in 1996.
  The use of other drugs has also increased. There has been a rise in 
heroine use among

[[Page 19513]]

young people who are smoking and sniffing that substance. This rise has 
occurred specifically in small metropolitan areas. In 1995 21.6 percent 
of heroine users were 12 to 17 years old and 40.2 percent were 18 to 25 
years old.
  Clearly, this increase in drug use needs to be addressed in any 
method that has proven to work. The Demonstration Projects provide 
local communities the opportunity to apply for funding for local 
programs that have been proven to work.
  The correlation of drug use and the increase in juvenile crime cannot 
be overstated. programs that work to reduce drug use among juveniles 
will also work indirectly to reduce youth crime.
  As we have witnessed in the past several months, juvenile crime is an 
important issue for many of us. All of us are eager to find solutions 
that work to stem the tide of youth violence. Many of us are equally 
concerned about the increase of youth drug use, and these concerns are 
interrelated.
  The $2 million offset for this funding is coming from the Building 
and facilities funding for the Federal Prison system. This small amount 
for building more jails to house young people and others who are 
convicted of drug offenses should be put to use preventing these 
crimes.
  This offset has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office and 
will have no impact on the funding on this bill. I ask My Colleagues to 
support this amendment. The money we spend on improving prison 
facilities can be put to use to prevent the need for more federal 
prisons.
  None of us wants to see another generation of young people damaged by 
drug abuse. Many of us remember how devastating drugs were in previous 
generations and this is something we can do to prevent a similar 
tragedy.
  The young people in this country deserve to have hope for their 
future and this amendment restores some of that hope. Programs that are 
proven to work on the local level to combat drug use should receive as 
much support as possible by the federal government. I urge your 
support.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. In 
fact, this program was one that was begun by this subcommittee some 
time back, and this would augment that program. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, any time you have the chairman agreeing, 
and mathematically he has the votes, you are in good shape, so I will 
just sit down.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman and the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


   violent crime reduction programs, state and local law enforcement 
                               assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 
     Act''), $1,193,450,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund; of which $552,000,000 shall be for grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other assistance authorized by 
     part E of title I of the 1968 Act, for State and Local 
     Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance Improvements, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 of said Act, as 
     authorized by section 1001 of title I of said Act, as amended 
     by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of which $47,000,000 
     shall be available to carry out the provisions of chapter A 
     of subpart 2 of part E of title I of said Act, for 
     discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs; of which 
     $9,000,000 shall be for the Court Appointed Special Advocate 
     Program, as authorized by section 218 of the 1990 Act; of 
     which $2,000,000 shall be for Child Abuse Training Programs 
     for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 224 of the 1990 Act; of which $206,750,000 shall be 
     for Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, to States, units 
     of local government, and Indian tribal governments, as 
     authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of the 1968 Act, including 
     $28,000,000 which shall be used exclusively for the purpose 
     of strengthening civil legal assistance programs for victims 
     of domestic violence: Provided, That, of these funds, 
     $5,200,000 shall be provided to the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women, $1,196,000 shall be provided to the Office of the 
     United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 
     domestic violence programs in D.C. Superior Court, and 
     $10,000,000 shall be available to the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start 
     Program, to be administered as authorized by part C of the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974, as amended; of 
     which $34,000,000 shall be for Grants to Encourage Arrest 
     Policies to States, units of local government, and Indian 
     tribal governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) of 
     the 1968 Act; of which $25,000,000 shall be for Rural 
     Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance 
     Grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act; of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be for training programs to assist 
     probation and parole officers who work with released sex 
     offenders, as authorized by section 40152(c) of the 1994 Act, 
     and for local demonstration projects; of which $1,000,000 
     shall be for grants for televised testimony, as authorized by 
     section 1001(a)(7) of the 1968 Act; of which $63,000,000 
     shall be for grants for residential substance abuse treatment 
     for State prisoners, as authorized by section 1001(a)(17) of 
     the 1968 Act; of which $900,000 shall be for the Missing 
     Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as authorized by 
     section 240001(c) of the 1994 Act; of which $1,300,000 shall 
     be for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, as authorized 
     by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; of which $40,000,000 
     shall be for Drug Courts, as authorized by title V of the 
     1994 Act; of which $1,500,000 shall be for Law Enforcement 
     Family Support Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) 
     of the 1968 Act; of which $2,000,000 shall be for public 
     awareness programs addressing marketing scams aimed at senior 
     citizens, as authorized by section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act; 
     and of which $250,000,000 shall be for Juvenile 
     Accountability Incentive Block Grants, except that such funds 
     shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set 
     forth in the provisions under this heading for this program 
     in Public Law 105-119, but all references in such provisions 
     to 1998 shall be deemed to refer instead to 2000: Provided 
     further, That funds made available in fiscal year 2000 under 
     subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 1968 Act may be 
     obligated for programs to assist States in the litigation 
     processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions 
     and for drug testing initiatives: Provided further, That, if 
     a unit of local government uses any of the funds made 
     available under this title to increase the number of law 
     enforcement officers, the unit of local government will 
     achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers 
     who perform nonadministrative public safety service.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cook

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

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

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), the entire committee and their staff 
for the good bill that they have brought before us, but I believe my 
amendment will make this an even better bill by cutting nearly $12 
million in unnecessary administrative costs from the International 
Trade Administration.
  To give Americans the tax cuts they deserve and protect Social 
Security and Medicare, we have to continue to

[[Page 19514]]

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

                              {time}  1730

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in 
pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment 
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for the COPS program on page 32 of 
the bill provides $268 million, which is the amount in the bill. This 
amendment would add $2.5 million over and above the authorized level 
and exceeds the authorization, so it does violate clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. COOK. I would, Mr. Chairman.
  The parliamentarian has ruled that within the 1997 budget agreement, 
this does fit within it. I would point out that the Congressional 
Budget Office has scored this as reducing the budget authority to the 
2000 bill by $6 million and reducing outlays by $7 million. I think it 
all fits within, and we have had the indication from the 
parliamentarian that there is not a problem with it in that regard.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The question is not budget levels, but rather, authorization levels. 
A proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of 
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an 
authorization in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained the argument on the 
point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation in question is authorized in law. Instead, it is apparent 
that the amendment causes the pending appropriation to exceed the level 
authorized in law.
  The Chair is, therefore, constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy, if I might.
  The United Nations has a very valued State Department employee that 
has

[[Page 19515]]

worked over there for a long time named Linda Shenwick, and Ms. 
Shenwick has brought to the attention of a number of Members of 
Congress waste, fraud, and abuse at the United Nations. As a result of 
her giving this information to Congress, she has not only been 
chastised, she has been removed from her position by the State 
Department and Madeleine Albright. We have written to Madeleine 
Albright about this and have not received a response. We have also 
written to the Inspector General of the State Department, and they have 
said that they do not feel that they are inclined to want to 
investigate this.
  I would just like to say that we have had a number of whistleblowers 
before my committee, Mr. Chairman, and we have found that there are 
real repressive actions being taken against these whistleblowers to try 
to keep them from talking to the Congress of the United States about 
waste, fraud, and abuse in various agencies of government.
  So I would like to just ask if there is anything that could be done 
in the Shenwick case to let the State Department know that this kind of 
action is not going to be tolerated by moving people out of their 
positions, by threatening them with their jobs so that they will not 
talk to Congress. I think it turns the entire situation on its head. We 
ought to be encouraging people to tell us where there is waste, fraud, 
and abuse; and they should not have to worry about losing their jobs if 
they do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made a point of this, and 
we have read only the press accounts, some of the press accounts of 
this matter. It is certainly not a very good way to lobby for funds for 
an agency to treat the Congress in that fashion, if, in fact, that 
occurred. Certainly, we will keep all of these facts in mind as we 
finally come to a conclusion later this year on the adequate funding 
level for the State Department.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might 
just ask the gentleman, if we find, and I think that the gentleman will 
find after his investigation into this and his staff, that she is being 
chastised because she gave Congress this information, will the 
gentleman try to let the State Department know in some way, maybe 
through the appropriations process, that this is something that is not 
going to be tolerated by the Congress?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield again, we do 
not have the investigative forces that would allow us the luxury of 
being able to delve into this matter in the way it should be. Perhaps 
another committee of the Congress would have more resources with which 
to deal with that, and I would like to know the conclusions of that 
committee that does it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my committee 
will be looking into it, and I will give the gentleman that 
information. But we are convinced that this kind of repressive action 
is being taken by State, and I hope that when the gentleman does the 
final appropriation in conference that the gentleman will let the State 
Department know that this kind of action will not be tolerated.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will be very interested to know the 
conclusions of the investigation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  On this item that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was just 
discussing, we have serious concerns about having congressional input 
or involvement at this point. As we understand it, this item is in the 
Office of the Special Counsel which was established by Congress. This 
issue is being looked at by that office, and without speaking much on 
this, it just seems to us totally improper at this point to commit in 
any way to any kind of congressional involvement when the fact is that 
this is being looked at legally, and testimony has been taken, it is my 
understanding, from both sides. I think that the proper way and the 
prudent way to go--I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the 
prudent way to go is to wait for the special counsel to come back with 
a proper ruling that speaks to this issue.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated case. We 
had four whistleblowers before my committee just recently, all of whom 
have either been threatened or chastised for talking to Congress about 
problems that have occurred in their agencies.
  Ms. Shenwick's case is the latest in a series of those, and we want 
to be able to encourage people to tell where there is waste, fraud, and 
abuse in government. If whistleblowers are not protected, if they are 
not allowed to tell us if they know they are going to be threatened 
with their jobs, then they will not come forward.
  I would like to be able to assure anybody in this government who 
believes that there is wrongdoing occurring or waste in their 
department occurring, that they will be able to come to us, whether 
they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and know that they will 
not be impugned.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that and 
I respect the gentleman's comments, but that is precisely the reason 
why Congress established an independent, nonpartisan Office of Special 
Counsel. I think that one of the things we have to decide around here 
is if we are going to take their work seriously. I would hope that, 
while the gentleman and his committee, sir, have the right to look at 
this, that we allow for this Special Counsel to first tell us not only 
about this case, but in general what is going on so that we can all 
take action together. I am sure that the gentleman will not be alone if 
this is not as it should be.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the case that we are talking about, I have no problem with the 
special counsel looking at this and making a judgment. But during that 
period of time, the lady in question is out of her job without any 
income, and she has a family. So the case could drag on for a long 
period of time, and she is suffering severe penalties because of that.
  So it seems to me that there ought to be some way to protect these 
people while an investigation is taking place so that they do not feel 
their job is in peril because they are telling Congress where there is 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments, but I still feel that the gentleman perhaps may 
be questioning the kind of job that the Special Counsel's office is 
doing, and that is a totally different item. But I think if we are 
going to have any kind of order in these issues, we should just wait 
for them to come back and give us the information necessary, and I hope 
that the gentleman takes that into consideration when he takes further 
steps.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       weed and seed program fund

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

[[Page 19516]]

     of Representatives and the Senate in accordance with section 
     605 of this Act.

                  Community Oriented Policing Services

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


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Maloney of Connecticut

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

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

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blagojevich

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

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

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment earmarks an additional 
$7.5 million in unobligated balances available in the Community 
Oriented Policing Services, known as the COPS program. This money goes 
into the COPS account to expand community prosecution programs across 
our Nation.
  As these dollars are unobligated, this amendment does not take away 
funding from other law enforcement priorities within the bill, and 
there are no budget cap implications.
  As many of my colleagues know, community prosecution programs provide 
a holistic approach to fighting crime neighborhood by neighborhood, 
community by community. They represent the next step in community-based 
crime prevention programs.
  Just as police officers are assigned to a beat under community 
policing programs, community prosecutors work with neighborhood 
residents and police on the beat to identify and preempt crime. 
Community prosecutors are assigned full-time to locations such as 
police stations, and work together with police on the beat and 
community leaders to develop innovative approaches to crime.

[[Page 19517]]

  By being involved in the community and utilizing their legal skills, 
community prosecutors are playing a role in reducing crime rates. Under 
community prosecution, crime victims, especially vulnerable populations 
such as the elderly and children, have a locally-based prosecutor who 
they know. They establish bonds of trust, and as a result, both victims 
and witnesses of crimes are more likely to come forward in the effort 
to interdict crime and prosecute crime, and they do so by working in 
conjunction with law enforcement.
  Not surprisingly, and as a consequence of programs like this, 
community prosecution programs have been successful in over 40 
communities across our Nation in towns as small as Rosebud, Montana, 
and in cities as large as Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, 
Illinois.
  They are strongly supported by groups like the National District 
Attorneys Association, and I have a letter here from the president of 
that association, Steward van Mevern. Mr. Chairman, this letter urges 
us to increase funding for community prosecution programs. The problem, 
however, is despite the success of programs like this, they continue to 
struggle for resources.
  Last year, with the chairman's help, we were able to establish a $5 
million community prosecution grant program. Unfortunately, no funding 
is provided in this bill for the program, even though funding was 
requested.
  Hundreds of communities across our Nation have applied for the grant 
funding provided in fiscal year 1999, but there was not nearly enough 
funding to meet their needs. This situation will not improve without 
adoption of this amendment today. This amendment will provide a 
sheltered funding source to continue community prosecution programs and 
sustain and develop existing ones.
  This year I hope we can work together to build upon the success of 
community prosecution programs and meet the needs of our communities.
  With that, I thank the chairman for his tireless efforts on behalf of 
fighting crime in general, and this effort in particular. Let me also 
thank our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for 
his wonderful efforts and his world vision on these issues.
  Let me also thank staff members Sally Chadbourne and Jennifer Miller 
for their assistance. Let me also thank Pat Schlueter in general for 
the efforts she has done on behalf of these issues. In closing, I thank 
my own staff, Deanne Benos and Michael Axelrod, who also worked on 
this.
  Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. His 
amendment would maintain the program in fiscal year 2000, and I 
certainly have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, God bless the gentleman, and I thank 
him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred and merged 
     with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, $267,597,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That these 
     funds shall be available for obligation and expenditure upon 
     enactment of reauthorization legislation for the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (title XIII of 
     H.R. 1501 or comparable legislation).
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, $10,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, for developing, testing, and demonstrating programs 
     designed to reduce drug use among juveniles.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $7,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 214B of the Act.


                    public safety officers benefits

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

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``General Provisions--
     Department of Justice'', strike section 103.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is very 
straightforward. It simply strikes section 103 from Title I, General 
Provisions, Department of Justice.
  In effect, what this amendment does is strike the language in the 
bill which prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services for 
women in Federal prison.
  Unlike most other American women who are denied Federal coverage for 
abortion services, women in prison have no money, nor do they have 
access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low wages in 
prison jobs. In fact, inmates in Federal prisons are completely 
dependent upon the Bureau of Prisons for all of their needs, including 
food, shelter, clothing, and all aspects of their medical care.
  These women are not able to work at remunerative jobs that would 
enable them to pay for medical services, including abortion services. 
In fact, last year inmates working on the general pay scale earned from 
12 cents to 40 cents per hour, or roughly $5 to $16 per week.
  The average cost of an early outpatient abortion ranges from $200 to 
$400. Abortions after the 13th week cost $400 to $700, and abortions 
after the 16th week go up $100 more per week, ending at about $1,200 to 
$1,500 in the 24th week.
  Even if a woman in the Federal prison system earned the maximum wage 
on the general pay scale and worked for 40 hours a week, she would not 
have enough money to pay for an abortion in the first trimester if she 
so chose. After that, the cost of an abortion rises dramatically, and 
even if she saved her entire salary, she could not afford such an 
abortion.
  If Congress denies women in Federal prison coverage of abortion 
services, it is effectively shutting down the only avenue these women 
have to pursue their constitutional rights. Let me remind my colleagues 
that for the last 25 years in this country, women in America do have a 
constitutional right to abortion.
  In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that deliberate 
indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes an 
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the eighth 
amendment of the Constitution.
  With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend 
on for health services, women prisoners are in fact coerced to carry 
unwanted pregnancies to term. The anti-choice movement in Congress 
denies coverage for abortion services to women in the military, women 
who work for the government, poor women, and women insured by the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans.

[[Page 19518]]

  I disagree with all of these restrictions. I think they are wrong. 
But when Congress denies coverage for women who are incarcerated, then 
Congress is, in effect, denying these women their constitutional right 
to choose. That is barbaric and that is coercive.
  Let me just talk a minute about the kind of women who are entering 
prison. Most are victims of physical and sexual abuse. Two-thirds are 
incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. Many of them are HIV-
infected or have full-blown AIDS. Congress thinks that it is in the 
Nation's best interests to force motherhood on them?
  I, of course, support the right of women in prison to bring their 
pregnancies to term, but that is not what this is about. It is about 
forcing women who do not want to bring their pregnancies to term to 
have a child. It is downright cruel and foolish to force women in 
Federal prisons to bear a child in prison when that child is going to 
be taken from them at birth or shortly thereafter. It is cruel to force 
a woman who does not have the emotional will to go through her 
pregnancy with limited prenatal care, isolated from her family and 
friends, and knowing that the child will be taken from her at birth.
  What will happen to these children, these unwanted children who are 
born to prisoners? Will they be raised by relatives who do not care 
about them? Will they be sent to an agency? What will happen to them? 
This is one of the most cruel things I think that Congress can do to 
women who are incarcerated.
  In 1993, Congress did the right thing when it overturned this 
barbaric policy. I urge my colleagues to do the same today, and support 
the DeGette amendment. Let us stop these rollbacks on women's 
reproductive freedom.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that this amendment seeks to 
strike, Mr. Chairman, does one thing only. It prohibits Federal tax 
dollars from paying for abortions for Federal prison inmates, except in 
the case of rape or the life of the mother.
  This is a longstanding provision, one that has been carried in 10 of 
the last 11 Commerce-Justice-State and Judiciary appropriation bills. 
The House has consistently rejected this amendment, this very amendment 
to last year's appropriations bill by a vote of 148 to 271; in fiscal 
year 1998, by 155 to 264; 2 years ago by a voice vote; and 3 years ago, 
by a vote of 146 to 281. It has been consistent, the House has, in 
rejecting this amendment.
  Time and again Congress has debated this issue of whether Federal tax 
dollars should pay for an abortion. The answer has been no. I urge a no 
vote again.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment, 
which would strike language banning the use of Federal funds for 
abortion services for women in Federal prisons.
  Women in prison have engaged in criminal activity. That is a fact. 
But through our judicial system we certainly need to seek appropriate 
responses to illegal actions, and that is what we do. Women in prison 
are being punished for the crimes that they committed. They are doing 
their time.
  However, this is a separate issue which we are addressing today. 
Today we discuss civil liberties and rights which are protected for all 
in America, and remain so, even when an individual is incarcerated. 
Abortion is a legal option for women in America. Since women in prison 
are completely dependent on the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all of 
their health care services, the ban on the use of Federal funds is a 
cruel policy that traps women by denying them all reproductive 
decision-making.

                              {time}  1800

  The ban is unconstitutional because freedom of choice is a right that 
has been protected under our Constitution for 25 years. Furthermore, 
the great majority of women who enter our Federal prison system are 
impoverished and often isolated from family, friends, and resources.
  We are dealing with very complex histories that often tragically 
include drug abuse, homelessness, physical and sexual abuse. To deny 
basic reproductive choice would only make worse the crisis faced by the 
women and the Federal prison system.
  The ban on the use of Federal funds is a deliberate attack by the 
antichoice movement to ultimately derail all reproductive options. As 
we begin chipping away basic reproductive services for women, I ask my 
colleagues, what is next? Dental of OB/GYN examinations and mammograms 
for women inmates? Who is next? Women in the military, women who work 
for the government or all women who are ensured by the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan. Limiting choice for incarcerated women 
puts other populations at great risk. This dangerous slippery slope 
erodes the right to choose little by little.
  It is my undying belief that freedom of access must be 
unconditionally kept intact. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to protect this constitutional right for women in America and vote 
``yes'' on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the innate value of a baby is not diminished in any way 
simply because the child's mother happens to be an inmate. Children I 
believe are precious beyond words. The lives of their mothers, 
likewise, are of infinite value.
  Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the killing of an incarcerated woman's 
child makes pro-life Americans accomplices--complicit with violence 
against children. I do urge a strong ``no'' on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have got to face the truth. Abortion methods 
are violence against children, the death penalty for an innocent little 
child. Abortion methods dismember children. It is commonplace for the 
abortionist to literally cut a baby to pieces.
  The previous speaker suggested that proscribing abortion funding 
might lead to the slippery slope of a denial of OB/GYN services or 
perhaps mammograms. That, frankly, is absurd. We are talking about 
something--abortion--that masquerades as somehow being health care when 
it actually is destructive. It kills babies.
  I do think the suggestion of a slippery slope in this case is an 
insult to those of us who fight for and believe very strongly in the 
importance of mammograms and expanding OB/GYN services. Again, the 
DeGette amendment sanctions subside for killing. Nothing healing or 
curative about that.
  Earlier in the debate I pointed out that abortion methods often 
dismember children. So let us focus on a moment on what abortion does. 
A high-powered suction machine, attached to a tube with a razor blade 
at the end is inserted into the womb, and the baby is literally hacked 
to pieces. That is the reality of a suction abortion. The suction 
device is some 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum 
cleaner. As the baby is cut up, the so-called ``contents of the 
uterus,'' the baby, are sucked into a bottle. That is outrageous and 
cruel. That is the killing of a baby. That is abortion.
  Another method of abortion is saline abortions. Babies slaughtered in 
this way have saltwater injected into their amniotic sac. The baby 
swallows the caustic salt. An unborn baby swallows the amniotic fluid 
daily to develop the organs of respiration. In abortion, saltwater goes 
into the infant's lungs, and the baby is poisoned. This is a death 
penalty, and it takes about 2 hours for the child to die--a very slow 
and agonizing death for the child to die from this type of abortion.
  Of course the abortionist has all kinds of poisons at his or her 
disposal to destroy a baby. This is cruel and unusual punishment for a 
child who has committed no crime.
  It is especially ironic, Mr. Chairman, at a time when ultrasound is 
like a window to the womb, and we know so much about a developing 
unborn child. We can watch a child suck his or her thumb. We can 
diagnose conditions and

[[Page 19519]]

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

[[Page 19520]]

are prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court (and the popular will 
of the American people who overwhelmingly support choice) they have 
instead targeted their restriction on women in prison--women in prison, 
who are perhaps the least likely to be able to object.
  Well watch out America. After they have denied reproductive health 
services to all women in prison, all Federal employees, all women in 
the armed forces, and all women on public assistance, then will once 
again try to ban all abortions in the United States. And they won't 
stop there. We know that many anti-choice forces want to eliminate 
contraceptives as well. It is a slippery slope that denies the 
realities of today, punishes women, and threatens their health and 
safety. This radical agenda must be stopped now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DeGette amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2000, the Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice--
       (1) may make grants, or enter into cooperative agreements 
     and contracts, for the Office of Justice Programs and the 
     component organizations of that Office; and
       (2) shall have final authority over all grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts made, or entered into, for the 
     Office of Justice Programs and the component organizations of 
     that Office.
       Sec. 109. Sections 115 and 127 of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277) shall apply to 
     fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.
       Sec. 110. Hereafter, for payments of judgments against the 
     United States and compromise settlements of claims in suits 
     against the United States arising from the Financial 
     Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) 
     and its implementation, such sums as may be necessary, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the foregoing 
     authority is available solely for payment of judgments and 
     compromise settlements: Provided further, That payment of 
     litigation expenses is available under existing authority and 
     will continue to be made available as set forth in the 
     Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation and the Department of Justice, dated 
     October 2, 1998.

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

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

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

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

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for

[[Page 19521]]

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

                         Export Administration


                     operations and administration

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

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

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


                         salaries and expenses

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

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     minority business development

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

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

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

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

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


                     periodic censuses and programs

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


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

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

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

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

                              {time}  1815

  ``It is necessary, essential or vital.'' Well, it meets that. ``It is 
sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time.'' It 
definitely does not meet that. ``It is an urgent, pressing and 
compelling need requiring emergency action.'' It does not meet that. We 
have known that. ``It is unforeseen, unpredictable, and 
unanticipated.'' It does not meet that because we have known about this 
for a considerable amount of time. ``It is not permanent.'' Well, it 
meets that. This is a 1-year expenditure. But it does not qualify under 
these guidelines.
  Describing the census as unforeseen, unpredictable and unanticipated 
is difficult given the fact we have a 10-year census every 10 years. If 
the census was not an emergency last year, how can it be an emergency 
this year? Last year, Congress provided $1.8 billion to begin preparing 
for the year 2000 census.

[[Page 19522]]

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

[[Page 19523]]

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

                              {time}  1830

  Number two, where is the question about why it should cost $24 per 
person in this country to take the census when it cost $11 in 1990, 
which I find ridiculously high. There is no accountability for the 
numbers that have been put forward in the budget. There is no 
efficiency for it. Even if we pass this amendment, there will be money 
for the census. We will bring money back for the census.
  Our job as Members of this body is to pay for the things that the 
American public want and need. I agree we need to fund the census. I 
agree that we need to be honest with the American public about this not 
being an emergency and us not having to account for it.
  The real issue is do we have the courage to reduce the spending 
somewhere else to make the appropriate dollars for the census?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I too am a 
member of the Subcommittee on the Census. I serve with the gentleman 
from Florida and with the gentlewoman from New York. I believe that 
this census is a very important census. This committee has done very 
good work to put this census together.
  However, this is not an emergency. There are portions of this census, 
the $1.7 billion part of this census, that is arguably an emergency 
because of the court rules.
  However, I think that we could also make the argument that the Census 
Bureau dragged their feet and could have prepared for that. But we are 
not even going to argue the point.
  This amendment sets aside the $1.7 billion in unforeseen census 
expenditures. However, the other part to the census is $2.9 billion. We 
knew this was coming. We have known about this since 1790. When the 
Budget Act was passed in 1997, Members of Congress who were negotiating 
that deal knew it was on the horizon and intentionally did not include 
this in the budget because they thought they would kick it out to 
today, to this year.
  Well, my colleagues, we knew that this was coming. We knew that the 
census would have to be paid for. I agree with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We need to pay for this honestly.
  Just remember, if we do more emergency spending designations than the 
new on-budget surplus allows for, we are going into the Social Security 
surplus; we are going into the Social Security Trust Fund. My 
colleagues, we are getting very close to that moment.
  All of us voted for one budget resolution or another which stopped 
the raid on Social Security. We have to stay out of the Social Security 
Trust Fund in an honest way.
  We can make the argument that $1.7 billion was unforeseen emergency 
census spending, but not all of this money. $2.9 billion of this census 
is stuff that we knew was coming. We should have prepared for this. It 
is not a new emergency. We should pay for this.
  I like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for a 
wonderful bill. All things considered, there are things in this bill 
that I think are far better than previous bills that were brought to 
this Congress under appropriations bills. But this is not an emergency. 
This is something that we should be honest with the American people 
about. We should cut other spending to pay for this census.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the motivation that leads the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to offer this amendment.
  It is ridiculous that this bill carries the $4.5 billion required to 
conduct the census as an emergency expenditure when the Constitution 
has told us since 1789 that we are going to have to be doing this every 
10 years. I mean, I have heard of advance notice in my time, but I 
think that is about the longest. So I understand how ridiculous it is.
  That is why I asked the Committee on Rules to allow me to offer an 
amendment which would strike the emergency designation.
  We just heard a speech in the well saying that this is not an 
emergency and so this amendment should pass. The problem with this 
amendment is that it does not do what the debate would seem to indicate 
it does, because the amendment does not strike the emergency 
designation. It strikes the money to run the census. And that is an 
irresponsible thing to do.
  I do not, for the life of me, understand why we should take seriously 
the claim that this is an emergency. But the way to deal with that if 
Members truly objected to the fact that it was an emergency was for 
Members to oppose the rule so that we could have gone back to the 
Committee on Rules and have gotten a rule that allowed us to strike the 
emergency designation.
  Having failed to do so, the House is now stuck with the choice of 
funding the census or not, and I believe it has no choice but to fund 
it.
  But I have to say that I, again, understand the frustration on the 
part of

[[Page 19524]]

the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which I share. Because, 
unfortunately, we have no more rules around here when it comes to 
dealing with budget issues.
  Four years ago, the government was shut down by the majority party 
because they insisted that we follow only the spending rules of the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Now, this year, because a different process suits their political 
convenience, they will pick and choose. One day we have to abide by the 
CBO rules; and the next day, when it comes to directed scoring upon the 
Pentagon, we have to apply the OMB rules. And then when neither one of 
those agency's scorekeeping fits, then we consult the Wizard of Oz. 
Lord knows who we will consult next.
  It just seems to me that we have destroyed all semblance of order. 
And so, when we play those kinds of budget games and when we declare 
something like the census to be an emergency, then it is no wonder that 
this institution has no credibility.
  Now, the argument the majority party makes is, well, we could not 
anticipate that we were going to have to run two different kinds of 
census because of the court decision. I understand that. That is why in 
committee we offered the amendment and why I tried to get the Committee 
on Rules to make in order on the floor an amendment which simply 
limited the emergency designation to the $1.7 billion that truly 
represented spending over and above the normal census.
  Yet, the Committee on Rules refused to allow that; and the House 
supinely went along with the decision of the Committee on Rules.
  So I am of a split mind on this amendment. I recognize the 
motivation. If this amendment eliminated the emergency designation, I 
would vote for it. But I do not think we can in good conscience 
eliminate funding that we know we have to provide. That is every bit as 
much a sham as the bill now before us.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman knows through our 
conversations that what my preference to do would be just to eliminate 
the emergency designation. However, the parliamentary rules prohibited 
both he or I from doing that very thing. I wanted to make that clear.
  My choice is not to eliminate the money but also to pay it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
consistent because the gentleman voted against the rule. Some of the 
other persons who spoke on this issue have not.
  I would simply say that, again, while I agree with the motivation of 
the gentleman, I believe the result would be every bit as phoney as the 
bill before us because it would be pretending that we could save $4.5 
billion which the Constitution requires us to spend.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
support the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, I did not.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask 
the him, did he vote for it?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no, I did not. I led the opposition to it. I 
called it a public lie.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple more points.
  One of the questions that we have not spent time with is holding the 
administration accountable for why it should cost $24 to count for 
every man, woman, and child in this country.
  Now, think about that. The State of Oklahoma has 3 million people. 
What is 24 times three? It is $72 million to count the people in 
Oklahoma. Give me a break. Or give me that contract. I will leave 
Congress right now. Give me the contract. I will become a multi-
millionaire just from counting the people.
  The cost to count is abhorrent to anybody that is out there who knows 
anything about putting forth the process. We use this process not just 
to count but to employ a lot of people who otherwise would not have 
jobs. That is a social good. I do not disagree with that.
  But to have a $24-per-person cost in this country to count says we 
are much more inefficient. And that is an indication of the rest of our 
government which says we could surely find this $4.5 billion somewhere 
else.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting amendment, interesting in 
the sense that if there was one thing that both sides agreed on in this 
bill, it was the inclusion of the year 2000 census, fully funded.
  Now, let me explain that once again. There are people on this side 
who have very serious problems with this bill. There are also people on 
this side who are voting for this bill, like yours truly, specifically 
because the census was well taken care of.
  So if there is a unifying force at all within this bill and on this 
bill in this House, it is the census. Now, to single out the census as 
the one that is going to take this kind of a hit is first of all 
undoing any possibility of working at all towards a resolution of this 
bill in the future, a bill that has a veto threat hanging over it.
  Secondly, I have to join and echo the comments of the chairman. If 
they do not want a census, if they do not want to conduct a census, and 
if they think the Y2K issue is a problem, just wait to see what will 
happen if we do not have a census. If they do not want a census, then 
vote for this amendment. If they do not want a census, vote for this 
amendment.
  Now, I take it a step further. I continue to see this as part of a 
plan by some people to go after those items in the budget that are 
supposed to take care of some problems within certain communities.
  I know the census is for the whole Nation. But the fact is, if the 
prior decennial census had a problem, it was that it undercounted some 
people. We tried to address that by providing the proper dollars to 
make sure it works. So in my way of thinking, whether it is correct or 
not, this is as direct an attack on certain communities as not funding 
Legal Services Corporation was that we had to deal with before.
  But the bigger issue here, and it has to be repeated over and over 
again, is that the census was the one issue where we worked jointly, 
where we made agreements where we reached some conclusions. Now we 
stand forward here ready to deal with all of the other issues that have 
not been resolved in the hope that we can reach agreement, but going 
straight ahead with this proper census as should be taken, and now we 
have this amendment cutting this kind of money from it.
  Not to mention the fact, and I hate to deal with technicalities, but 
it has been called to my attention that if we look at the way these 
items are funded, this amendment talks about cutting the top amount, 
the overall amount; but it does not talk about where that is going to 
come from in the different frameworks. So if we leave the amendment 
this way, and I am sure the gentleman will correct that, and I should 
not be helping them on this, the breakouts will sum up to more than the 
amount that will be left to run the total census. And that is a 
problem.
  But, please, I would hope that on this one we could join together in 
a bipartisan fashion to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

[[Page 19525]]


  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we spend this 
money on an emergency basis that it will come out of Social Security 
funds.
  Let me remind the body that just today the majority whip said on the 
floor, and he is correct, this comes out of the on-budget surplus; it 
does not come out of Social Security.
  The emergency declaration that we have, the $4.5 billion that we are 
talking about on the census, comes out of the on-budget surplus, not 
out of Social Security.

                              {time}  1845

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

[[Page 19526]]

think in a bipartisan fashion we are supporting this in providing the 
full resources to the Census Bureau at this time. I ask for the defeat 
of the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to respond to something the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky just said. He claimed that this 
funding is occurring out of the surplus and that it is not coming out 
of Social Security. I want to correct that statement.
  Legislation brought to the House by the majority so far this summer 
would more than exhaust the $14 billion on-budget surplus projected by 
CBO for fiscal year 2000. First, the tax bill passed by the House cost 
$4.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. Second, the emergency designation for 
the entire cost of the 2000 census allows more than $4 billion of 
fiscal year 2000 outlays to occur without being counted against the 
committee's allocation or the budget caps that we are talking about. 
Even though those outlays, Mr. Chairman, will not count under the 
budget rules, they still will occur and they will eat into the surplus.
  Third, the majority has been instructing CBO to lower its outlay 
estimates for most of the appropriations bills that have been reported 
by the committee. Those scorekeeping plugs reduce outlays counted for 
the defense bill by $9.7 billion and for various domestic bills by at 
least $2 billion. Doing so allows the bills to spend more than the 
allocations and caps would normally allow by an amount equal to the 
downward adjustment in the outlay estimates.
  That means that the three items that I have just listed more than 
consume the $14 billion in on-budget surplus projected by CBO for the 
year 2000. In fact, they would turn that $14 billion on-budget surplus 
into a deficit of at least $6 billion. Other past and future gimmicks 
raise that deficit even further.
  To make a long story short, under either the CBO or OMB forecasts if 
consistently applied, any projected on-budget surplus for fiscal year 
2000 is already gone due to actions taken by the Majority in their 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I do not generally agree with 
the gentleman from Oklahoma, but I think in this process he has shown a 
commitment to some of the integrity of what should be a process that is 
on the level with respect to the numbers.
  As pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin, clearly this money 
comes out of Social Security because the surplus the next fiscal year 
simply is not big enough to withstand the actions that have already 
been taken. It just stretches the credibility of every Member of 
Congress to go home to their district and to tell them that we believe 
that the census is an emergency and therefore it will not count against 
the caps that were set in 1997. Everybody in the country, I think, 
knows that those caps were unrealistic. But this is nothing more than a 
gimmick to get underneath those caps.
  Now, speaker after speaker has gotten up and told the gentleman that 
if he does this, there will be no census. Does anybody really believe 
that? That is not the case. It does not work that way around here. 
There will be a census and it will be funded. They have told him that 
it would destroy the census if we did this. Well, one easy way to fix 
this would be to give the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin unanimous consent to let them remove the emergency 
designation and then they can go on about their merry way and fund this 
out of the deficit like they plan to do. But they left the gentleman 
from Oklahoma no choice but to come here and strike the money. That was 
not his first choice, it was not the first choice of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, but that is where we are because of the Committee on Rules.
  So unless you want to go home and look like a fool and tell your 
constituents that you voted to believe that the census is an emergency, 
you are going to have to support the Coburn amendment. And then this 
Committee on Appropriations will have to respond to that. They will 
either remove the designation, at which point I think the gentleman 
from Oklahoma may be satisfied because we are back on kind of what 
looks like reality with the American people, or they will have to go 
back and remove the $1.7 billion or the $2.4 billion, whatever the 
figure is, that you can say is really an emergency. There are all kinds 
of options.
  This is not about doomsday, this is not about killing the census, 
this is not about destroying the census. It is about the credibility of 
the budget process, the credibility of the appropriations process, the 
credibility of the surplus, the credibility of Social Security, and 
also the credibility of each and every Member of this House when you go 
home for the August break and tell them you discovered an emergency 
called the census.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me just start by saying that I think the chairman of the 
subcommittee does a wonderful job with a very difficult task. I believe 
that the gentleman and the gentlewoman who have been handling the 
census issues have done well, also. I am not an expert on that. I 
really do not even want to discuss or debate that. I agree that it has 
to be done. I do agree with the gentleman from California who just 
spoke. My view is that if this amendment passes, within 3 hours the 
subcommittee will have met again and probably straightened out this 
problem in some way or another. I think it is fallacious to stand here 
and say that the census is not going to be done because this particular 
amendment does pass.
  But we are not here really to discuss that. In my judgment we are 
here to discuss the budgetary aspects of this and why are we declaring 
a census which has been called for since 1789 in this country to be an 
emergency. The bottom line answer is, it is not an emergency, it is not 
unforeseen, it is not unanticipated, it fails every definition of 
``emergency'' we have ever had here in the Congress of the United 
States.
  My judgment is that we just have to stop the rampant abuse that has 
been going on in recent years of calling everything an emergency to 
avoid the problems of the budget and to avoid the problems of the caps 
that we are all so familiar with here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. It is just not honest budgeting. It is just something 
which makes no sense back home.
  The argument was already made about some of the emergency spending, 
but just look at this. In 1999, we designated $34 billion as emergency 
spending here in the House of Representatives and in the Congress of 
the United States. If we look at the CBO numbers, and this argument has 
already been made, but CBO reported $14 billion in on-budget surplus 
for the year 2000. CBO says we might actually have a $3 billion deficit 
now.
  How did they get there? They count $3 billion of spending for 
administrative expenses for Social Security Administration, other 
spending on defense, nondefense and transportation discretionary 
spending which will be $14 billion higher than CBO assumed for 2000 in 
its current baseline.
  There is not, as has been suggested here, an on-budget surplus. What 
does that mean? That means again we are going to have to borrow from 
Social Security in order to fund this particular census situation, and 
indeed I think that is something that we simply do not want to do.
  What are we coming on to? I believe over in the Senate they are 
putting together about a $7 billion package for more emergency 
spending. Indeed, if this bill passes, we are going to have that much 
more emergency spending, all of which comes out of the overall money 
which is there.

[[Page 19527]]

  We have just done a tax cut here. We have had a lot of references to 
$996 billion over the next 10 years. Every time we spend one of these 
emergency spending bills, we take it away from that $996 billion in 
terms of determining where we are going to go. This is just not 
realistic budgeting. It is just not something that we should be doing 
in the Congress of the United States.
  We should face up to the people of the United States and say that we 
are spending the money properly and in order and in a way one can 
understand, or that we are breaking the caps, or we should reduce it as 
some would want to do.

                              {time}  1900

  That, in my judgment, is what we should do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, was on the 
Committee on the Budget, maybe still is.
  Mr. CASTLE. No, it is not true. Sorry.
  Mr. ROGERS. Do not be sorry for that.
  Does the gentleman agree, though, that the 1997 budget deal that was 
voted by this body ignored any expenditures for the 2000 census?
  Mr. CASTLE. I do not know the answer to that.
  Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can assure the gentleman that it did.
  Mr. CASTLE. I assume it did, or the gentleman from Kentucky would not 
be asking that question.
  Mr. ROGERS. And does the gentleman also admit that the current-year 
budget resolution that was passed by this body also did not anticipate 
a single penny being spent for the decennial census in 2000?
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I assume that is also true. However I 
will say that clearly both of those should have assumed this. These are 
matters which we knew were coming, and they should have been assumed in 
both of those particular projections. I do not know why they were not. 
To me that is an error.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield very briefly, 
when that happened, and the budget numbers were given to the full 
Committee on Appropriations, there was no money in that allocation for 
a budget, and so when my allocation was given to me on the Subcommittee 
from the full Committee, likewise there was no money allocated for the 
decennial census.
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. And so that is why I had no choice, and leadership in 
consultation agreed there was no choice here.
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I do not agree at all with what the 
gentleman has just stated, and I do not think he is at fault in this at 
all. But I believe those who did those allocations, I believe the 
leadership in looking at this in overlooking this problem of dealing 
with this 3.5 billion to $4.5 billion made a serious error. I think 
that is where the problem is. We should correct it now. We should start 
by passing this amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Not a lot more that can be said other than perhaps to follow up on 
some of the comments, but what concerns me is that while it is 
absolutely correct, as has been pointed out by my colleague from 
California (Mr. Miller) that this is not an emergency, we get ourselves 
into a very perilous trap if we are not careful.
  Let us admit the census is not an emergency. For the last 230 some 
odd years we have not been conducting the census because it is an 
emergency. It is a constitutional requirement, and we must do it, and 
under the Constitution we are not told that we can do something 
halfway, part way, or by counting some but not all. We are supposed to 
try to do the best job we can with the resources we have and the 
technology to count everyone.
  The Census Bureau has told us it will cost a tremendous amount of 
money to count all of those people. Part of the reason it will cost so 
much is because we are doing both as best a job we can to actually 
count people, and we are using also the best techniques, the best 
systems available, the scientific methods available to us, to do the 
count.
  Hopefully then we will not have the 8 million or so people missed as 
we have had in the past. We will not have so many children in this 
country who do not count at all because they have been missed in our 
previous censuses; we will not have all the folks who happen to be a 
little more transient than others missed because they happen to have 
not been home or not had a home when the census was conducted, and we 
will not have this situation as in my State of California where about a 
billion dollars did not come back to the residents of that State 
because so many people were not counted in the 1990 census.
  But let us admit this is not an emergency. The census should not be 
designated as an emergency. This is creative accounting, what we see in 
this bill when we call the census an emergency.
  But to not fund the census adequately, fully, as necessary, as the 
Census Bureau has indicated, would lead us down that beaten path of any 
inaccurate census count which will cost us in money because there are 
many areas in this country that will lose out on funds that they 
deserve because the population is there to return the funds that those 
people paid through income taxes.
  We will lose out in political representation because by not counting 
all our people we will not designate for them their representatives in 
this same body that they are entitled to under the Constitution, and we 
will shame ourselves in the Constitution by not doing what we are 
supposed to as indicated by our Founding Fathers.
  So while this is not an emergency under the census to fund it, we 
will cause an emergency if we pass this amendment and not fund the 
census appropriately because we will cause ourselves a situation where 
we will find ourselves facing all sorts of lawsuits; we will find 
ourselves facing a situation where States will come crying because they 
deserve dollars that they did not get over the next 10 years; and we 
will find ourselves in the situation where again children, poor people, 
people who are migratory will say again they did not count because this 
Congress will not have included them in the census.
  That is not something we should do. We need to fund the census fully. 
Go ahead and call it whatever, we need to get the money there. We 
should not call it an emergency. It is a game. It is a deception to 
call this an emergency, but at the end of the day let us not shirk our 
responsibility. Let us fund the census.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to our proposed census, I have introduced 
H. Con. Res. 129, a sense of the Congress resolution calling on the 
Census Bureau to include all Americans residing overseas in the Census 
2000, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has introduced a 
similar measure.
  Our Census Bureau currently provides an accounting of American 
military and government employees overseas, but fails to count private 
sector Americans residing outside the Continental United States. There 
are approximately 3 million Americans living abroad. They play a key 
role in promoting our U.S. exports and creating U.S.-based jobs, yet 
the Census Bureau chooses to ignore them.
  Moreover, as America increases its leadership role around the world, 
it is imperative that our census policy reflect the growing segment of 
our population, a segment that pays its taxes and votes in our Nation.
  The U.S. Census Bureau says it wants Census 2000 to be the most 
accurate census ever. I strongly support that commitment, and for that 
reason I believe the Census Bureau has a responsibility to count all 
Americans residing overseas, not just employees of our government.
  This problem was raised at the time of the last census, back in 1990, 
yet has still not been resolved. Accordingly,

[[Page 19528]]

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

                              {time}  1915

  We cannot pretend to look very narrowly on the budget that is before 
us and pretend that things are not happening in the Senate, because, as 
we know, they have marked up a bill that has billions of dollars of 
farm emergency spending in it that is going to put us over the caps, 
and, in fact, when you look at the assumptions behind the budget, what 
you would say is it is going to be very, very difficult for us to 
really stay within our promise of not reaching into Social Security, 
because what the assumptions suggest is, one, we will stay at a 
peacetime high in terms of what the government takes from economy, and, 
two, we will have a frontal lobotomy in Washington and drastically 
reduce spending from 19 percent of GDP to 16 percent of GDP.
  Mr. Chairman, I would add only that this amendment is supported by 
Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 19529]]

  Mr. Chairman, I take to the floor in support of the Coburn amendment 
and commend the gentleman for his fiscal honesty, and I appreciate the 
support that others have shown for it. The census obviously is 
important, but it is also important that we bring some honesty to the 
budget process.
  This morning I spoke against the rule and made the statement that we 
are already spending Social Security trust funds, and asked if anyone 
disagreed with me, to please confront me. There were Members here who 
could have, but chose not to. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
the majority whip, was on the floor and chose to confront me after I 
left the floor. In doing so, he made some allegations that I want to 
set the record straight on.
  He said the Blue Dog budget had a tax increase, not a tax decrease. 
That is simply false, and he knows it.
  He said it is okay to declare census spending an emergency, because 
the 1997 budget agreement did not provide money for the census. I find 
it hard to believe that my colleague from Texas was actually suggesting 
that because Congress made a mistake and forgot about the census when 
we passed the 1997 budget agreement, we have to declare an emergency 
and leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
  I would also point out that the Blue Dog budgets that we offered in 
1995, 1996 and 1997 all budgeted money for the census, supported by a 
majority of Democrats on each instance. If the Republican leadership 
had paid more attention to the Blue Dog budgets back then, perhaps we 
would not have this problem today.
  Another statement the majority whip made this morning is that the 
spending in all of the appropriation bills for next year is being cut. 
Saying that the appropriation bills are cutting spending below last 
year's level relies on an awful lot of creative accounting, directed 
scorekeeping, where we tell the Congressional Budget Office how to 
score bills to make it look like we are spending less. Oh, how my 
colleague from Texas used to lambast us Democrats when he accused us of 
doing what they are now doing.
  If we let CBO score all the appropriation bills honestly, they would 
tell us that the appropriation bills we have passed already spend $15 
billion to $18 billion more than the leadership would like us to 
believe. That is in this book right here for anyone that wants to read 
it, phony offsets, emergency spending, taking spending off budget, all 
of these things we should not be doing.
  On page 6 of the Congressional Budget Office July budget outlook that 
is being cited as projecting surpluses outside of Social Security, they 
wrote,

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

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


                preferential motion offered by mr. obey

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


                             recorded vote

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

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               AYES--166

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

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)

[[Page 19530]]


     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

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

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SHOWS and Mr. PHELPS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Washington, ROTHMAN, DICKS, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the body about the schedule for the 
balance of the evening.
  Mr. Chairman, so that Members will have some general guidance about 
the balance of the evening, let me attempt to generalize about the 
schedule. And if any of the leadership finds me speaking the wrong way, 
they can interrupt me.
  But as I understand it, this is the way we intend to proceed: I would 
hope, as soon as we get back to the Coburn amendment, that we could get 
a unanimous consent to limit the debate to 30 minute, 15 per side. We 
will do that appropriately at the right time. At which point, if that 
is agreed, we would then proceed to the three votes that are stacked 
up, including Coburn; in which case, at the conclusion of those three 
votes, my understanding is the Committee would rise and take up the 
Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Loan Guarantee Act conference report. 
Following that, I do not know.
  But at least I think we can have some period of time after these 
three votes that Members would have, while the conference report is 
being debated, for perhaps some private time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Coburn 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that the 
time be equally divided between the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have only one remaining speaker. I 
reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I do not agree with his 
amendment, but I think he is doing something that is very important.
  I would like to talk about the emperor. The emperor, of course, are 
the spending caps. This emperor is so sacrosanct and is wearing this 
beautiful gown. We will never, ever take the gown off the emperor.
  Of course, we may do a little bit in defense spending where we have 
an emergency bill that doubles the amount that the President asks for. 
We may do a little bit in highway spending. Now we are doing a little 
bit in census spending. Mr. Chairman, the emperor has no clothes.
  We are sitting here with a budget and spending caps that we are 
busting over and over and over again, and nobody wants to say it on the 
Republican side except for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). 
But the emperor has no clothes. We are letting him walk down the street 
bare naked because no one is willing to say we have to make some 
adjustments.
  The reason I do not agree with this amendment is because we have to 
have the census. The Constitution says we have to have the census. It 
is not a surprise. It is not something that was snuck into the 
Constitution in the middle of the night where, all of a sudden, we go, 
oh, my God, we have got to do a census this year. We know it has got to 
be there. But what has happened is this process has been so distorted 
by the majority side that this is the only mechanism left.
  If they want to continue this charade, the charade of saying that 
this is an emergency, then that is what it is going to have to be. But 
the American people should know that this is a charade.
  We have to have the census, but the only opportunity we have been 
given tonight to have the constitutionally mandated census is to do it 
through emergency spending. If that is what we are going to do, then we 
have to get it done.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
the generous grant of time to discuss this important amendment.
  I come to the debate equipped with two reference sources, the first 
being Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. ``Emergency: an unforeseen 
combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for 
immediate action.''
  Now, it is plausible to believe that we cannot anticipate everything 
in the budget and that emergencies do happen beyond our control, and we 
should figure out a way of dealing with them.
  The question is, is the census, is the dicentennial enumeration of 
the people of the United States an unanticipated emergency that could 
not be foreseen? Well, Thomas Jefferson 210 years ago could have told 
Congress that in the year 2000 they were going to need money for the 
census because it was required that it be done every 10 years as long 
as the Nation should stand, and the Nation still stands.
  So this is by no means an emergency in terms of unanticipated budget 
needs. Budget gimmicks were not quite enough. The rosy scenario, 
assuming that things would continue as well as they had for the last 10 
years, for the next 10, that was not quite enough.
  The quiet proposal and winking and nodding about real cuts of 30 
percent in all domestic spending, even that was not quite enough to get 
to the point where we could have tax cuts and not declare emergencies 
to make room for the tax cuts. That is what this is all about.
  Social Security is going to be hit and hit and hit and hit again with 
so-called emergency spending which does not count. We are taking the 
money. We are spending it. We are replacing it with IOUs in the Social 
Security Trust Fund. We are ripping the lock off the lockbox, but it 
does not count.
  Do not pay any attention. Look the other way. It is not an emergency. 
This is not an emergency. This is spending the Social Security trust 
funds for the

[[Page 19531]]

census, something that could have been anticipated.
  We should support the gentleman's amendment. Get honest about this 
budget.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of 
discussion obviously on this issue. But the reality is that I agree 
with those who say the budgeting process has become convoluted. It has 
even gotten a little bit dirty.
  But this amendment reminds me of the instance where one throws the 
baby out with the bath water. The baby is the census in this case. 
While we need to clean up the process, we do not need to do it at the 
expense of the census. We need the census money. I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the analogy of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
is very apropos. Being somebody who delivered two babies this weekend, 
both of them over 9 pounds, sometimes when one has got a baby and one 
is going to give it a bath, the first thing one has got to do is get 
the baby out of the mama's tummy to give the bath to it. Sometimes they 
do not always come out right. Sometimes one takes a pair of forceps, 
salad tongs, and gets that baby out of there.
  I am trying to get the emergency baby out of this bill. I would 
appreciate anybody's vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding me this time, and I want to rise in support of 
his amendment.
  There is no doubt that the census is not an emergency. If my 
colleagues believe in the integrity of the budget process and if my 
colleagues believe in the integrity of the lockbox, if my colleagues 
believe that we should spend Social Security taxes only on Social 
Security, then my colleagues, too, have to support this amendment.
  Procedurally, this is the only way for us to deal with this issue. If 
we pass the Coburn amendment, we can send this bill to the Senate 
without a provision for the census. We can then pass the motion to 
instruct the conferees to accede to the Senate position, which would be 
to not declare the census an emergency.

                              {time}  2000

  There will be a census. Everybody in this chamber knows this. 
Everybody in America knows there will be a census when we get done. The 
reason that this has been declared an emergency is so that we can 
exceed the spending caps in the balanced budget agreement of 1997.
  I think the gentleman from Texas, when he attacked the whip, was 
talking about truth and honesty in budgeting. I would agree that it is 
not honest budgeting to declare this census an emergency, but I can 
tell my colleagues this, too, it is hard to find a lot of honesty in 
the budget process on this floor tonight.
  It reminds me that politics in Washington is often referred to like 
the politics in the Middle East where there are three positions on 
every issue; there is an official position, a public position, and then 
there is the real position. Folks are coming down to this floor every 
day on the appropriations process arguing they want to save Social 
Security first, first things first, they will say, and then they will 
argue that every single appropriation bill is underfunded.
  Now, many of those same people voted for the balanced budget 
agreement with the President in 1997. They congratulated themselves, 
they congratulated the President, and they said they were finally 
exercising fiscal discipline. Well let me tell my colleagues what the 
fiscal discipline of that was. First of all, it increased spending by 
almost $60 billion in the first 2 fiscal years, and since then we have 
spent almost $62 billion in emergency spending, $122 billion over the 
baseline amount in 2 years.
  What it said is we would put off the tough choices to the year 2000. 
Well, guess what, here we are at the year 2000 budget and nobody here 
seems to have the ability to stand up for their principles. No one on 
this floor tonight has questioned the most important element here, and 
that is why is this census costing so much? Congress and the President 
cannot agree on how to do the census, so what have we done? We have 
said we will fund two censuses. We will do not one, we will do two, the 
President's way and the Congress' way.
  If my colleagues believed that they were exercising fiscal discipline 
and voted for the balanced budget agreement in 1997, then they have to 
vote for this Coburn amendment. If my colleagues voted for the lockbox 
and they meant it when they said that they wanted to set Social 
Security aside for Social Security, then they have to vote for this 
Coburn amendment. If my colleagues voted for tax relief and they 
believed and they meant that they could fund that tax relief by not 
tapping into the Social Security account, then they have to vote for 
the Coburn amendment, too.
  We need to vote for this Coburn amendment. It is the only way to 
restore integrity.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, what time is remaining on each side and 
who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has 10 
minutes remaining and has the right to close, and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, we are 250 days away from the 
census and, as my good friend on the other side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has pointed out, this is 
constitutionally mandated. We have to have a census. Whether we call it 
an offset or an emergency, every person in America needs to be counted.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) to fund the census at $4.5 billion, the requested amount 
from the administration, and I urge a very strong no vote on the Coburn 
amendment. The Coburn amendment would make it impossible to get a count 
in the census; it would create the worst census since we began counting 
over 200 years ago. I urge a very strong no vote.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, in the spirit of bipartisanship 
and in friendship on this.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, especially 
those on my side of the aisle, to oppose this amendment.
  As I said earlier, this is an irresponsible amendment because it 
takes $2.8 billion out of the census and does not replace it. We have 
to pay for the census. We do not have a choice. It is a constitutional 
requirement, and we have said all along we were going to do the best 
census possible and address the problems that have existed in the past 
censuses.
  I served on the Committee on the Budget back in 1997, and that is 
where the problem started, with the budget agreement, which I 
supported. Reflecting back on it, we never provided any money as part 
of that. We forgot. We did not intentionally exclude the census 
funding. But that is $4.5 billion. And in this year's budget it was not 
included.
  Now, I will admit my mistake. There were mistakes made in putting 
that budget together, but we have to provide it. That is the reason it 
is going to become an emergency. I wish it was not an emergency. 
Ideally it would not be.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.

[[Page 19532]]

  I am enlightened here. Apparently I now understand the nature of the 
emergency. We forgot. This is a very handy thing. From now on whenever 
we are supposed to have done something and we do not do it, we do not 
say I forgot, we say, I am sorry, it is an emergency.
  Because the gentleman said the problem is that in 1997, when some of 
my colleagues voted for what I think was a pretty stupid agreement, 
they forgot there was going to be a census. Now, I do not know who 
withheld this information from those individuals, but now we have an 
explanation of an emergency. They forgot.
  I plan to use this. When they say to me, where is that thing the 
gentleman is supposed to have, I will say, I am sorry, it is an 
emergency. If they ask somebody on their staff if they wrote the memo 
that they wanted them to write, they can say, no, it is an emergency. 
So we now have invented the handiest excuse in human history.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, tonight I am arguing against the amendment 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I think it is wrong. We 
are arguing again about how to fund the census, debating a 
constitutionally-based census that we carry out every 10 years.
  The consequences of failing to do this are real frightening. What 
does this do to Mississippi? Ten years ago we undercounted 55,000 
people. This year we have a real likelihood of losing a seat in 
Congress because we did not adequately fund it 10 years ago. We do not 
need to underfund the census today. It is a crime; it is a shame. My 
people in Mississippi need as much representation as anybody else in 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, the census affects us in our highway planning, 
construction, public transportation, educational block grants, and 
everything else. Our credibility is at stake. The credibility of this 
chamber and the integrity of a census that sets the agenda for this 
Nation for the next 10 years.
  Let us do the right thing, let us make sure all Americans are counted 
and that our democracy is operating on the foundation where all 
Americans are counted for and representation is shared equally and our 
dollars are spent wisely.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is an issue that is before us that really does not have 
anything to do with the census. There is an issue before us that does 
not have anything to do with the budget. The issue that is before us is 
dare we pull the wool over the American people's eyes about calling 
something an emergency when it is not.
  We have heard several people say we are not going to have a census if 
this amendment comes through. Everybody knows we are going to have a 
census. What they are really saying, when they are saying that, is they 
do not want to do the hard work to find the real money to pay for this 
and not take it from the Social Security fund. That is what the real 
answer is. That is not what is said, but that is what is intended. We 
all know that because we all know if this amendment passes the 
Committee on Appropriations is going to have to find the money for the 
census.
  I know that we can explain a lot of things back home, but I think it 
is a real stretch for us to be so arrogant to say we can go home, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, and say we just 
forgot, therefore, it is an emergency. This is not an emergency. What 
will be an emergency is if we spend and break our word with regard to 
the Social Security surplus.
  There were two people in this body who voted for the President's 
budget to raise taxes and raise spending. Two people. Everybody else in 
this body voted against that budget. Everybody else voted for one of 
two budgets that said we will not, under any circumstances, touch 
Social Security money. So it is really an issue about whether or not we 
are going to be truthful with the American public.
  It is not truthful to say there will not be a census if this 
amendment passes because we all know there will be. It is not truthful 
to tell the American public that it is an emergency to fund a census 
because somebody forgot. They did not forget. They did not put it in, 
including from the Committee on the Budget. I know this from having a 
conversation with the chairman, because they were hoping to force a 
decrease in spending so they did not elicit it. So nobody really 
forgot.
  We can do what we need to do. We can take care of every American that 
is dependent on us; we can have an accurate census; we just need to do 
it more efficiently. We need to remeasure the programs that we are 
passing money for. Are they effective, are they doing it the most 
efficient way? Our problem this year is we are refusing to do the steps 
that will help us become efficient in our government as we are in every 
other aspect of our society.
  The Senate is talking about, and we will be discussing as well, 
emergency spending for the farmers, the most efficient farmers in the 
world. We cannot ask them to cut their costs any more. They are already 
the cheapest in the world by far. Let them be an example to us. Let us 
make every program that the Federal Government runs as efficient as the 
farmers are in this country. If we do that, we will have $100 billion 
with which to fund the census and everything else we need.
  I want my colleagues to check their hearts and ask themselves if they 
can go home and tell the people in their districts that this census is 
an emergency; that they had to spend their constituents' Social 
Security money and their grandchildren are just going to have to pay a 
little bit more to fund the Social Security system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One of the comments that we keep hearing from everyone on that side 
who gets up to put forth a deep cut is, do not worry about this cut, 
what it is that I am cutting will get done. So we will cut one bill, 
then people will say, do not worry about it, Defense will be taken care 
of. Then they will cut another bill and say, do not worry about it, 
everything in Energy and Water will be taken care of. Now today they 
are saying, we will cut the census but, do not worry, the census will 
be taken care of. And I suspect some time in the fall they will cut 
education and health care and health services to shreds and they will 
say, do not worry about it, people will be taken care of.
  This may come as a shock, but sooner or later, if we keep on cutting, 
something is really not going to happen. Something is not going to go 
well. And the reason that we are opposing this amendment today is 
because we know for a fact that the census can run into serious 
problems if we approve this amendment.
  Now, I also personally would like to help the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn). He told us with such pride and joy, and he should tell us 
with pride and joy, that just this weekend he delivered two babies. 
Well, his amendment runs the risk of not counting those babies in the 
census. I do not want him to go through life delivering babies that 
will not be counted in the census.
  Let me just end with this thought, which is the same one I brought up 
before. I think it is important for everyone to understand that the 
census was the only issue in this bill on which there was full 
agreement. Let me repeat that again. The census item was the only part 
of this bill on which there was full agreement. People like myself, who 
are voting for final passage of this bill, are doing it not because I 
support the cuts we made, they are doing it mainly because it funded 
fully the census.

                              {time}  2015

  So now to break the only agreement we had by destroying the census 
means that whatever support there is for this bill we lose, whatever 
hope there is that we could move ahead to come up with a better bill in 
general terms we lose, that any possibility we have to get this project 
on the way we lose.
  There are things that have to be dealt with right away. When the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and

[[Page 19533]]

when the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) get up and tell us 
the importance of this item and when the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) tells us the importance of this item, they are not 
saying that just to hear themselves speak or to appear on TV. They know 
how difficult it was to reach this point.
  How many of my colleagues have forgotten that we held up budgets in 
the past because of the census issue? So if we are here, we are with an 
agreement at least on this item, why even consider voting for the 
Coburn amendment?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that everyone in this House joins in a 
bipartisan basis to defeat this amendment. This is the worst amendment 
from a gentleman who is famous for his amendments, but this is without 
a doubt the worst amendment he has brought to the floor. If this should 
pass, even he would regret it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 372]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--263

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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

                              {time}  2038

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

[[Page 19534]]




                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 373]

                               AYES--160

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

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2046

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


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 374]

                               AYES--171

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

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter

[[Page 19535]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2055

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FORD, Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. TIERNEY changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2670) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  2100