[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12017-12029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 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. 4690.

                              {time}  1409


                     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. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, 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 11 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we present to you H.R. 4690, making appropriations for 
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Federal 
Judiciary and related agencies for fiscal year 2001. This bill provides 
funding, Mr. Chairman, for the largest variety of Federal agencies of 
any bill. The impact ranges from safety on our streets, to the conduct 
of diplomacy around the world, even to predicting the weather from 
satellites in outer space. So we will have a chance to talk about a big 
chunk of the Federal Government when we talk about this bill.
  The bill requires a very delicate balancing of needs and 
requirements. We continue in the bill to recognize the very tight 
funding restraints under which we are required to live because of the 
1997 Balanced Budget Act. At the same time, we must keep in mind the 
most fundamental needs of our Nation, and we have to provide sufficient 
funds to ensure that those needs are met.
  This bill recommends, Mr. Chairman, a total of $34.9 billion in 
discretionary spending, and that is within our allocation from the 
Congress and the full committee. Within that limited allocation, we 
focused funding on priority areas to maintain our investments and to 
address key priorities, including maintaining our efforts in the war on 
crime and drugs by fully funding current operations for Federal law 
enforcement and the courts, as well as the growing detention needs in 
our prisons and our INS detention centers.
  We maintain our crime fighting partnership with States and our 
localities to ensure that they have the tools they need to fight the 
war on crime and drugs, as well as the emerging threats of domestic 
terrorism; and we all know that it is in our local communities and in 
our States where the biggest war on crime and drugs and terrorism has 
to take place.
  We maintain other important programs at current operating levels, 
including the weather service, weather satellites, trade promotion, law 
enforcement, State Department operations and small business assistance 
programs, as well as to provide full funding to complete the Decennial 
Census.
  We continue and we strengthen our efforts to provide the most secure 
environment possible for our diplomatic personnel as they carry out 
their vital work overseas. We strengthen our efforts to address the 
growing crisis in

[[Page 12018]]

detention, the continued problem of illegal immigration, and new and 
emerging crime threats as we move into the 21st century.
  Within our limited resources, we have tried to stay the course, 
preserve proven programs, and address the highest priority problems. We 
have deferred funding for proposals for new programs that are 
undefined, untested, and unauthorized by the Congress, and may be 
impossible to sustain in future years.
  For the Department of Justice, the biggest part of this bill, we 
recommend $20.3 billion for discretionary spending. That is $1.75 
billion over the current year; and the vast majority of that increase 
is just to maintain current operating levels of Justice and to address 
the growing detention crisis. Of the increase, 45 percent, $789 
million, is for increased detention costs to house Federal prisoners, 
criminal and illegal alien populations that are being detained in this 
country.
  The bill also includes a $415 million increase for Federal law 
enforcement operations, FBI, DEA, U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals, 
just to maintain their current operations and provide targeted 
increases for firearms prosecutions, drugs, cyber-crime, and national 
security threats.

                              {time}  1415

  In addition, $329 million is provided to ensure that Federal, State 
and local law enforcements are able to continue to operate in the new 
technology arena that the world has entered.
  For INS, the Immigration Service, in addition to detention funding, 
we also provide increases for another round of new Border Patrol agents 
and technology that supports them, and for interior enforcement within 
the U.S., and to try to reduce the enormous naturalization backlog that 
now is years long.
  The bill also includes a total of $4 billion for our State and local 
law enforcement partners as they fight the crime on the local level, 
including the COPS program. These programs are all maintained at pre-
rescission fiscal year 2000 levels.
  For the Department of Commerce, $4.4 billion is recommended, and that 
is a net decrease of $287 million below the comparable 2000 year level, 
excluding the one-time cost for the decennial Census, which we had to 
fund last year.
  The bill maintains funding for most Commerce agencies at the current 
year level and provides some increases for key programs, including the 
weather service, weather satellites, NIST core research programs, and 
the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service in our embassies overseas.
  These increases have been offset by eliminating low-priority NOAA 
programs and the Advanced Technology Program, as well as savings from 
nonrecurring, one-time construction costs at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology.
  What this bill does not do, Mr. Chairman, is fund a number of new or 
expanded Commerce programs requested in the budget, unauthorized and, 
in some cases, even undefined, and we have not funded significant 
program expansions whose future funding levels may not be able to be 
sustained in future years.
  For the Judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the district 
courts, we recommend $3.49 billion, that is an increase of $245 million 
above the current year. That is just to allow the courts to maintain 
their current operations and to provide for a limited number of 
programmatic increases, and to allow the new judges that are being 
appointed and new courthouses being opened in order to staff those 
offices. These increases are in line with those provided to maintain 
our commitment to law enforcement. We cannot increase the investigators 
without increasing the courts to handle them and the prosecutors to 
prosecute them and the prisons, finally, to house those convicted.
  For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, we 
recommend $6.4 billion. That is an increase of $253 million over 
current levels, but $405 million below what was requested of us. The 
recommendation includes $3.1 billion for the domestic and overseas 
operations of State, and that is an amount sufficient only to maintain 
the current levels of staffing and our overseas presence.
  The recommendation provides just over $1 billion, $1.06 billion, the 
full request, to address critical embassy security requirements and to 
continue designing and constructing secure replacement facilities for 
the most vulnerable of our overseas posts where our personnel are most 
at risk. This is a priority of this subcommittee, and I am delighted 
that we were able to meet the requests for spending in total.
  We recommend $438 million for all U.S. government-sponsored 
international broadcasting, now functioning as an independent agency 
under the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
  Related Agencies. Last but not least, we include $1.9 billion, $507 
million below the request, and $128 million below current levels, but 
this level preserves current agencies and functions, and we reduce or 
eliminate lower priority programs. We include $856 million for the 
Small Business Administration, including $276 million for the disaster 
loans program and $264 million for business loan programs.
  We have tried, Mr. Chairman, to bring to the committee a clean bill. 
It is free of the major policy controversies that have bogged us down 
in the past, and it meets the highest priority needs within the 
allocation we were given. We give no ground in the war against crime 
and drugs, we maintain our commitment to core programs at Commerce, 
including the National Weather Service and high priority items within 
NOAA; we maintain our commitment to providing secure facilities for our 
overseas personnel, and by hitting the subcommittee allocation we were 
given, we maintain the principle of fiscal restraint. It represents our 
best take on matching needs with resources, and I hope the House will 
stand behind it.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the 
ranking member, who has been a very effective and valued partner of 
mine and colleague as we drafted and worked on this bill. I deeply 
appreciate his thoughtfulness and his tireless participation throughout 
the process and his frank discussions with me about our work.
  I would be remiss if I failed 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 Louisiana (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 work and assistance, and to express our thanks for all the 
long hard hours of our staff; it takes dedication and stamina, and they 
have been there. We want to thank our full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), the full committee ranking member, for their help.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this bill.
  One final consideration on this bill, one note of privilege here, and 
that is that my staff is maintaining a list of amendments, those that 
are filed and those only in the drafting stages, and I would appreciate 
the Members letting us add their name to the list if they think they 
might have an amendment. Simply knowing of that will help us manage the 
bill and perhaps speed its consideration.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize what the 
Chairman has just said with respect to that one point. If we are to be 
able to try to work on some kind of unanimous consent agreement at some 
point, we need to know the full universe of amendments, and what 
Members' full intentions are. Otherwise, it is difficult to protect 
those Members, and the sooner we know that, the sooner we can try to 
meet the demands of the House.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12019]]


  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss H.R. 4690, the bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the 
Judiciary, and several related agencies for fiscal year 2001. I would 
be remiss if I did not first express my appreciation for the excellent 
relationship the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of 
our subcommittee, and I have enjoyed since I came on board as ranking 
Democrat, nearly a year and a half ago. He has been a good and fair 
leader and that made my tenure on the subcommittee both pleasant and 
productive, as well as educational. I must point out that this is his 
last year as chairman under the term limits imposed by his conference. 
His knowledge and experience of this bill can hardly be matched in the 
House, and I believe this will be a tremendous loss to us.
  I also want to thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for their support and understanding during these very 
difficult times.
  It has also been a pleasure to work with the other subcommittee 
members. Those on our side have worked particularly well together, and 
I must especially thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), both of whom have 
served on the subcommittee for many more years than I have who have 
quietly guided and graciously supported the newer members, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and myself.
  I want to take this opportunity to also thank both the subcommittee 
staff and my personal staff and our committee staffs. They are all here 
with us right now. They are Gail and Jennifer, Mike, Christine, John, 
Greg, Kevin, and, of course, our subcommittee staff, Sally, Pat, and my 
own staff, Lucy, Nadine, and Cecelia. I am sure I left somebody out, 
and I am in trouble for that.
  As I have said often enough each year, within ever-tighter budget 
allocations, it grows tougher to produce a defensible bill. But my 
chairman has done a decent job with the resources allocated to him. The 
biggest flaws in this bill flow from the artificially low allocation 
and the choices it has forced on the subcommittee.
  Despite a very sound economy and healthy, on-budget surpluses which 
CBO, in its mid-session review, is soon expected to increase, the 
Committee on Appropriations remains bound by artificially low 
allocations which prevent us even from keeping all of our agencies at 
their current services level and making funding important new 
initiatives virtually impossible. This is a time when we should take 
advantage of the economy and the surpluses to invest directly in our 
people and in our Nation through programs to narrow the growing income 
and opportunity gaps and strengthen the economy, not just hope 
investment will trickle down from tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans, which is I think a foolish way to look.
  The chairman of our subcommittee has provided some increases for high 
priority law enforcement functions, but overall, the bill is not 
balanced. There are serious shortfalls in areas that are important to 
Members on both sides of the aisle. Even within the Justice Department, 
the emphasis is on prisons and detention, not the programs that protect 
Americans' civil rights or address crime or crime prevention at the 
local level. The same is true for the related agencies that protect 
civil and employment rights. The Commerce Department is virtually 
frozen without even the inflationary increases needed to maintain 
current services for its vital activities.
  Mr. Chairman, let me mention only three problems with Commerce and 
related programs. Trade monitoring and enforcement will need more 
resources, not less, to assure compliance with the newly enacted Africa 
trade law and with China PNTR, even though supporters of both pledge 
muscular enforcement. The statistical activities that produce the data 
that underlie our economic decision-making have been declining under 
hard freezes for years, despite enormous changes in our economy, and we 
are approaching the point when basic data sets may become unreliable.
  NOAA, with its critical work on weather, the health of our air and 
water, coasts and oceans and so much more, is cut $113 million below 
fiscal year 2000 and more than half a billion dollars below the 2001 
request. This certainly leaves no money for Commerce's proposed 
initiatives, including two of particular importance to me: creating a 
pool of minority candidates for scientific and technical jobs at NOAA 
and NIST through minority-serving institutions, and bridging the 
widening digital divide between the haves and have-nots of the 
information age.
  In the State Department, the funding for embassy security is 
certainly welcome and necessary. However, provisions fencing part of 
our U.N. dues pending a certification that cannot be made until well 
into the fiscal year, and holding our contributions to international 
peacekeeping at the current year's level will reduce our leverage for 
continuing reform at the U.N. and put us back in arrears to the U.N.
  The funding shortfall for the Small Business Administration will 
affect our small businesses and, thus, our economy. The SBA's core 
programs are vital to small businesses, but providing $201 million 
below the request means an inadequate base for them to build upon. I am 
particularly concerned about the severe cuts in the request for 
microloan technical assistance and to the women's programs, as well as 
the lack of any funding for the new PRIME Technical Assistance Program.
  The Legal Services Corporation, which won a final fiscal year 
appropriation of $305 million, has once again emerged from full 
committee with an appropriation of $141 million. For the last 5 years, 
floor amendments have increased LSC's appropriations to around $250 
million. This year, I am offering an amendment to increase the Legal 
Services Corporation to $275 million.

                              {time}  1430

  I will explain the offsets for this increase when I bring up my 
amendment.
  I will also be offering an amendment with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) to increase funding for the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice. I believe that in such a good economy, it is 
outrageous not to address the discrimination that keeps some Americans 
from full participation in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, like last year, I am hopeful that by the end of the 
process, we will have a bill we can all support. Although I have 
serious problems with H.R. 4690 in its present form, and as long as 
nothing happens on this floor to make it worse, I will not try to 
derail it, but will continue to work with the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) for a better final product.
  I hope that this is also the concern on the other side, because at 
this point this bill would be unacceptable to most Members of this 
caucus.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished and very effective chairman 
of the full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I rise in part to compliment him and congratulate 
him for having brought what is a fairly difficult bill to the floor in 
what I think will be a fairly bipartisan approach.
  I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.  Serrano), the ranking 
minority member, who has been just a tremendous partner in this whole 
effort.
  I would like to say that this is Thursday, and hopefully the 
agreement that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are 
working on, along with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), will allow us to complete 
consideration of this bill early enough tomorrow that Members can make 
their weekend plans.
  I also want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations, the staff, 
and the Members of this House. This is

[[Page 12020]]

the eighth appropriations bill that the House will have sent down to 
the Senate for this fiscal year. That is in addition to the 
supplemental that we did earlier.
  Eleven of our subcommittees have marked up their bills. The full 
committee has marked up 10 bills and has sent them to the House. The 
11th bill will be marked up on Tuesday morning. That is the foreign 
operations bill. Next week we expect to have on the floor the 
agriculture bill, which is basically ready for floor consideration, and 
the energy and water bill, which we intend to have on the floor before 
next weekend.
  Also, we fully anticipate having the conference report on the 
military construction bill ready for House consideration next week. So 
all in all, by the end of June, most of these appropriations bills will 
be through the House and down in the other body.
  One bill, the District of Columbia, will not be, and basically that 
is because the District of Columbia has a different fiscal year than 
the Federal government. We have not yet received the budget request 
from the District of Columbia, so we are not able to have that bill 
ready by the end of next week.
  The appropriations committee has done a good job moving the bills. 
The House has done a very good job moving the bills. I want to 
compliment all of the Members of the Committee on Appropriations for 
their excellent work.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say, in response to the remarks of 
my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, I certainly expect that by 
the end of June the House will have all or almost all of the 
appropriations bills through the House, but frankly, I think that means 
almost nothing. I do not know of a baseball game in which we score a 
run by having 12 or 13 men standing on first base.
  The way it works in government is passage of the House gets us to 
first base, passage of the Senate gets us to second base, passage of 
the conference report after we iron out agreements between the Senate 
and the House gets us to third base, and signature by the President 
gets us home.
  Six of these bills that we have ground through day after day and 
night after night are stuck on first base. A few of them may get to 
second base. All six of those are not going to get home. They are not 
going to get a presidential signature until they begin to reflect 
reality.
  The problem is, we have gone through a huge debate taking many, many 
hours, on bills that we all know are not real. We all know that, in the 
end, the majority party is not going to be able to provide $90 billion 
in tax cuts for those who make over $300,000 a year, they are not going 
to be able to provide $200 billion in inheritance tax cuts for the 
richest 400 families in this country because the President is not going 
to sign those bills.
  When Members finally recognize that, then there will be enough room 
in these bills to deal with the education needs of the country, to deal 
with the health care needs of the country, to deal with the foreign 
policy needs of the country, to deal with the criminal justice needs of 
the country, to deal with the law enforcement problems of the country, 
and to eliminate some of the ludicrous shortages that we have here 
today in the antitrust budget, in the trade enforcement budget, and the 
like.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that, in a sense, I feel strange 
even taking the House's time, because these bills are going to be 
adjusted. Every time a bill comes to the floor we are told by the 
majority party, ``Do not worry, this is only the second step in the 
process. Somewhere along the line it is going to get fixed.''
  What that means is somewhere along the line, somebody else is going 
to exercise their responsibilities. That is not much of a way to do 
business, in my view. But I guess since the bills are here we have no 
choice but to lay down clear markers about what we consider to be the 
shortcomings of those bills, as long as we are forced to go through 
this charade.
  Eventually I would urge the gentleman to recognize, and I think the 
gentleman from Florida knows it, I would urge the House leadership to 
recognize that they can pass these bills in one of two ways. We can 
either pass these bills, as we just passed the previous appropriation 
bill, with a broad bipartisan coalition and pass these bills with a 
margin of three to four to one with a strong bipartisan chorus of 
support, or we can try to pass them on their side of the aisle with a 
few token votes on this side.
  The majority has chosen to do the latter. That gets them to first 
base, it gets the bills out of the House, but it does not get them any 
further around the base paths. And until the leadership allows us to 
legislate rather than produce these ``let's pretend'' bills, we will 
continue to hear ``Well, we know these bills are inadequate, but we 
will do better in September.''
  It would be much better if we did better now!
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just make this one point, that I think all of us who pay any 
attention to baseball understand that we cannot go from home plate to 
home plate. We have to go to first base first, and then we go to 
second, and then we go to third, and then we go home. We just cannot 
get there without passing first base.
  Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I recognize that. But as the gentleman 
knows, these bills are all going to be vetoed, so they have not a 
prayer of getting home. The ball is never going to get out of the park 
on any of these bills.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to hit a home run with 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce-
State-Justice and Judiciary appropriations bill. I certainly commend 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for bringing to the House a 
bill which was crafted under very tight budget constraints that governs 
the appropriations bills this year.
  The bill does continue most programs at current levels, and 
recognizes high priority areas. I especially would like to thank the 
chairman for continuing the important partnership that has developed 
between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the 
Department of Commerce and the Jason Foundation for Education.
  This unique partnership continues to make available important 
research data collected by NOAA to over 3 million students who 
currently participate in the Jason Project. The focus of the Jason 
Project is to excite and engage elementary and secondary students in 
the sciences, and to encourage them to continue their education in the 
field of science. We have a lot of emphasis on that now.
  In addition to a yearly curriculum, students participate in annual, 
electronic, and interactive field trips led by preeminent explorer and 
scientist, Dr. Robert Ballard.
  This year the electronic school bus took students to the NASA Space 
Center in Houston and NOAA's Aquarius Underwater Laboratory in the 
Florida Keys. Students studied research techniques and equipment that 
are used in researching the two extremes, outer space and under water.
  One key to the success of the Jason Project is its teacher 
professional development program. This is a first-rate program which 
should be made available to as many students as possible. This is 
pioneering work in long-distance learning.
  As we move through the process, I would also like to work with the 
chairman to find some additional funding for the United States trade 
ambassador to enhance efforts to ensure compliance with trade 
agreements. I think

[[Page 12021]]

this is of particular importance with the recent vote in the House to 
grant China permanent normal trade relations. We must be sure that 
China meets its commitments under the U.S.-China bilateral agreement to 
enter the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, as the representative from the Bronx, home 
of the world champion Yankees, and keeping in line with our baseball 
talk, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt), the star pitcher for the Democratic team.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding time to me.
  For the very reasons that the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) described in his statement, I have about ceased to 
come to the floor to debate appropriations bills because, especially at 
this stage in the process, we engage ourselves in a charade because we 
know this bill and many others are going to be vetoed.
  Occasionally I pick up a bill and become so disappointed, indeed 
sometimes so outraged, that I just have to raise my voice. This is one 
of those occasions, because when we are dealing with Commerce, Justice, 
and the Judiciary, and matters of state, we do not have the excuse that 
many of my colleagues on the Republican side have when they are just 
beating up on poor people or trying to deny giveaways or welfare, or 
whatever their political or social agenda is.
  This bill generally is about how we assure people who are trying to 
do right by the system that we give some presumptions to how we fund 
their programs and be of assistance to them in meeting their 
obligations in the democratic process.
  So when I look at a bill that funds the Legal Services Corporation at 
a 50 percent cut or 60 percent below what the President of the United 
States has requested, I say, what are we saying to people? Should they 
take to the streets and try to get their rights redressed in the 
streets, or should they continue to have confidence in our legal 
process and go through the legal process? What obligations do we have 
as a Congress to encourage them to use the legal process?
  When I look at no funds in this bill to help address the digital 
divide, I ask myself, what message are we sending to people who are not 
able to, because of their station in life, to take advantage of these E 
advances, this technology, this booming growth that we are taking 
advantage of as a Nation?
  When I look at a bill and see that the Equal Opportunity Commission 
is cut by 10 percent when people are trying to get equal justice and 
equal access to jobs in a growing economy, I say, what message are we 
sending to the people of the country?
  I could go on and on and on, because this bill is simply inadequate. 
We should reject it and quit participating in this charade.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the only gentleman in the body that last year 
struck a home run in that infamous ballgame.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for those 
kind words and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. I think few people 
realize how important this appropriations bill actually is to security, 
peace, tranquility, justice in this country. It, pound for pound and 
dollar for dollar, may be the most important appropriations bill of all 
13.
  Over the last 2 years, we have had approximately 23 hearings each 
year. I have attended virtually all of those hearings, and I have to 
tell my colleagues I am so impressed with the leadership of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). No one in this body knows 
their business and their subject matter better than the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers).
  If the term limits for subcommittee chairmen rule holds, and, 
frankly, I hope in certain cases it does not, if it does hold, this may 
be his last presentation of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
mark. He deserves great credit. As he hosts those hearings and 
interrogates our witnesses on critical matters around the globe, he 
knows his issues so well.
  Attorney General Reno, Secretary Albright, Secretary Daley, Louis 
Freeh of the FBI, we fund almost 300 embassies and consulates around 
the world. There are so many critical parts of this bill. He knows the 
ins and outs. He has steered us over these last 2 years through the 
difficult issues of the census and the U.N. arrearage issue, both of 
which we now have behind us, and he has done it remarkably well.
  That is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), our ranking 
member, speaks with such respect about the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers). I thank him for being sensitive to the little issues as well.
  It is no longer a little issue, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) and I both know very well, the issue of methamphetamine 
production in rural America, where in east Tennessee we have got a bad, 
bad problem, and kids are dying and lives are being destroyed. This 
bill funds the remedy for fighting methamphetamine production, and it 
is so critical.
  It is a balanced bill. We do not have as much money as we would like. 
But I will tell my colleagues this is a very responsible prioritization 
of resources within the limits that we face.
  Today I come to the floor hoping that this is not the last 
subcommittee mark of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) that goes 
through the full committee and through the House for the first time but 
hope, in fact, that he can stay. But if, in fact, this is his last 
mark, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, I thank 
him for all that he does for the United States of America. A job well 
done.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), one of those few States with two baseball teams.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill for several 
reasons. First of all, it cuts the request by the Department of Justice 
for its civil rights division by $11.8 million. It cuts the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission by $31 million. This bill cuts the 
Department of Justice's community relations service by $2.35 million. 
It cuts the Civil Rights Commission by $2.1 million.
  Finally, I cannot support this bill because it seriously cuts the 
Legal Services Corporation to a level that will effectively shut down 
basic legal services for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our 
society who are seeking justice.
  When we are serious about improving race relations, relationships 
between law enforcement and communities, when we are serious about 
reducing racial profiling on our streets and roadways, in our airports 
and in our courtrooms, when we are serious about the real pursuit of 
justice for all of America, we will vote down this bill and restore the 
resources necessary so that everybody will have an opportunity to 
bridge the gaps between those who have and those who have not.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we vote against this bill so that we can, 
in fact, ultimately move towards justice for all.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members will realize that when Members come 
here and speak at talking about cuts that they recognize that the 
speaker, for the most part, is talking about cutting from the amount 
requested of the Congress and not from the current levels of spending.
  For the most part in this bill, as I have said, we maintain agencies 
at least their current levels. The Legal Services Corporation is an 
exception to that. But most of the other agencies are either increased 
or kept at their current levels. Very few, if any, besides Legal 
Services, are actually cut in this bill from current levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), one of the hardest working Members of our subcommittee, who 
all the while is concerned with the interests of his district at home 
especially.

[[Page 12022]]


  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Commerce, Justice, State bill, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2001, as this bill addresses so many of the priorities that are very, 
very important to all Americans. This bill covers, I think, the 
broadest jurisdiction of an appropriations bill that we will address 
this year.
  I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our great chairman, for the tremendous job 
that he has done the last 4 years that I have been on this subcommittee 
and how sensitive and responsive he is and his staff are to my concerns 
and the concerns of the people in the district, and, also, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) who started in this subcommittee 
this Congress and has learned very, very quickly and is really a 
tremendous asset, and we thank him and his staff for all their hard 
work.
  We have real problems in my part of the country, and the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) referred to it also as far as the meth 
problem. This bill really addresses what is an epidemic from the Upper 
Midwest with the methamphetamines that are coming in basically from the 
Mexican cartels, through California, up through the borders and is 
having such a dramatic effect on Iowans and especially our young people 
today.
  In 1999, the DEA seized 400 meth labs in the State of Iowa. The Iowa 
Department of Public Safety seized an additional 500 meth labs. What 
people should keep in mind is that this is about 10 percent of the 
amount of meth that is coming into the district and into the State. 
This is why we have to focus on these problems, and this bill does 
this.
  There are $523 million for local law enforcement block grants, $552 
million for the Byrne, local law enforcement assistance grant program. 
The Community Oriented Policing Services is funded at $595 million, 
including $45 million which is targeted in places like Sioux City, Iowa 
with the Tri-State Drug Task Force that is doing such an outstanding 
job today on this problem that we are experiencing.
  In Iowa, as well as the rest of the country, we are experiencing real 
problems that I am sure this will be discussed a great deal with the 
INS, the fact that, last year or the last 5 years, they have released 
35,000 criminal aliens into the general population. This is absolutely 
outrageous. People convicted of crimes, aliens of this country, and 
they are released into our population. The failure to bring integrity 
into the system as far as naturalization and the benefits process that 
we have throughout the country. The problem that we have as far as 
pending applications in the past year has increased from $2.1 million 
to $2.7 million.
  We have an INS that simply cannot handle the responsibilities. We 
are, in fact, putting more and more money into this agency to try and 
solve these problems. But many of us believe that it is systemic in the 
agency itself and question, quite honestly, the competency of the 
leadership in that agency. But we are doing everything possible to make 
our immigration services work as they should.
  It certainly is not a case of enough dollars going into it, as those 
budgets have been dramatically increased, at least in the 4 years that 
I have been on the subcommittee.
  Just in closing, I would again express my strong support for this 
bill to thank, again, the chairman and his staff for the tremendous job 
and the responsiveness and the sensitivity to the issues that are 
before us.
  I think it is an excellent bill. It can, maybe, be made even better 
later on. But certainly, under the restrictions we have, we are doing 
an outstanding job.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to address some of the comments that the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) said. He made some comments 
about folks coming to the floor and saying that there were cuts, and he 
referred to them not as cuts, but, rather, turning down the full 
request that the administration has made. He is correct on that.
  There are many parts of this bill where the amount the administration 
has asked for has been rejected, has not been adhered to. But we need 
to understand that those requests come about because there is a need, a 
growing need in some of these programs. There are services that have to 
be rendered. There are inflationary issues that have to be dealt with. 
So in fact, it is a cut when one says that one will not abide by the 
request.
  Secondly, there are parts of this bill, and the glaring one is the 
Legal Services Corporation, where, indeed, it is a cut from current 
year funding. I mean, that is clear. So while I respect the use of 
words by the gentleman from Kentucky, I think that some Members on this 
side think their use of the word cut and cuts are not improper because 
that is, in fact, what they are.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly on that 
point?
  Mr. SERRANO. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if I recollect correctly, the President's 
budget request was brought to the floor and voted on. Is it not correct 
that the House rejected the President's request by some 430 to 2. I ask 
the gentleman, what was the correct figure?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion of the gentleman from Kentucky 
is not correct. The President's budget was not brought to the floor. 
The majority's interpretation of what the President's budget was was 
brought to the floor, and that interpretation was disowned by the White 
House as well as those of us on this side of the aisle. My colleagues 
were essentially bringing a false product to the floor and asking us to 
assume it as our own, and we were not dumb enough to do it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) fully understands not only what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says is correct, but also the fact that we 
did respond or did not respond to the administration's requests as we 
knew them to be, not as any other interpretation. Both our staffers had 
correct numbers and we had a choice to accept it or not accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining in 
general debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), a very hard- working member of the committee 
and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, I guess, to a point of inquiry to both 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), who has such vast 
knowledge of our judicial system, and to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano), his counterpart, who also has this same type of 
knowledge, to engage in a colloquy, a conversation about something I 
think is a very serious problem.
  We have been hearing a lot of talk in the last couple of months about 
the breakup of Microsoft. But there is another serious problem that I 
think the Justice Department ought to look into, and that is a company 
by the name of Krispy Kreme who manufactures and bakes daily doughnuts.
  Krispy Kreme readily admits on their advertising that they are the 
world's finest doughnuts, the same as Bill Gates talked about his 
computers. They are the world's largest selling doughnut, which proves 
my point that they have a monopoly on doughnuts, because they have 
developed the most delectable, delicious possibility of confection 
capabilities known to mankind. As a result, there is no doubt about it 
that they have a monopoly.

[[Page 12023]]

  I think and I want my colleagues' help and their assistance in trying 
to convince Janet Reno to, maybe, bust this company up.

                              {time}  1500

  I think maybe we ought to look at the possibility of breaking it up 
to a glazed division, because we also have to understand, and those of 
my colleagues who have ever had one of these Krispy Kreme donuts will 
agree, that they are the most delicious things certainly I have ever 
tasted. They melt in your mouth. Most donuts, when we put them in our 
mouths, they expand, but Krispy Kreme melts in your mouth.
  In addition to that, they have signs in front of all their bakeries 
that say ``hot,'' and it is almost mesmerizing to people to drive by a 
Krispy Kreme and see that sign that says ``hot.'' One is almost 
compelled to move in there.
  I think it is time for the Justice Department to look into this and 
to see if the same situation does not exist that existed with 
Microsoft, to possibly splitting this company up into several 
divisions. Anyone who has ever eaten one of their chocolate donuts, 
they are the most delicious donuts you have ever tasted. But why should 
one company have the best donuts and the other companies not have an 
opportunity to compete fairly with them on an open-ended basis?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to punch a hole in the 
gentleman's argument.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just reclaim my time back to 
tell the gentleman that Krispy Kreme is now even selling the holes out 
of the center of the donuts.
  Mr. ROGERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I can tell that he is an expert on this subject, and I wonder if 
there is a way that we could somehow taste the fruit of his labors and 
test whether or not there ought to be a suit brought.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think I could arrange for that. Because 
they are so inexpensive, I will be happy to provide donuts for the 
entire House, both sides of the aisle, so they can taste the 
delectability of these products that this company is making, that no 
doubt has given them this monopolistic situation that exists here in 
the United States.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will further yield, I want to compliment 
the gentleman for bringing this very serious matter to the attention of 
the Congress and the country; and I know that the Justice Department, 
when they learn of the monopoly that the Krispy Kreme glazed donuts 
have on this country, they will want to take appropriate action even as 
they have on other cases, and I commend the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we might also look at the EPA and get 
them involved, because any time a person drives by one of these 
bakeries and they sense this aroma of these fresh, hot donuts, they are 
almost compelled to turn their automobile into that store and buy 
donuts.
  And another thing, too. We have to look at the good will. I know all 
of my colleagues witnessed the jubilation that was expressed by the 
lawyers of the Justice Department, when they were kissing and hugging 
each other, with their little bow ties on, after they won the case 
against Microsoft. They need some more reason to celebrate.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin by thanking the members 
of the Appropriations Committee for their consistent support of SCAAP, 
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  The Committee's efforts to expedite delivery of this important 
assistance to state and local governments is especially important to 
states like California, which have a large number of undocumented 
immigrants.
  As many of my colleagues know, this program reimburses state and 
local governments for the costs associated with their incarceration of 
undocumented criminal aliens.
  Since securing our nation's border is a federal responsibility, it 
seems only appropriate for the federal government to pay states for the 
costs they must expend.
  It is estimated that these costs, in the 1999 fiscal year, totaled 
over $576 million for the State of California.
  While I'm appreciative that the Committee recommended $585 million 
for the 2001 fiscal year, I am hopeful that as the appropriations 
process continues, Congress can work to increase funding to the 
authorization cap of $650 million.
  Another important program that is currently underfunded in the CJS 
Appropriations Bills is the COPS program, which helps law enforcement 
work with communities to keep our families safe.
  In my district in Orange County, the COPS program has put 313 
officers on the street.
  Both SCAAP and COPS are very important programs that I feel are 
underfunded in this Appropriations bill.
  These, however, are not the only programs that receive inadequate 
funding: the Legal Services Corporation, the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, and the Commission on Civil Rights can also be 
added to the list of underfunded programs in this bill.
  I hope that all members of Congress can work together to ensure that 
these, and other important programs in the bill, receive adequate 
funding in the 2001 fiscal year.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, while I believe this bill is deficient for 
a number of reasons, I want to specifically focus on what I consider to 
be a woefully inadequate level of funding for the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) program.
  At a time when the country is gaining the upper hand in our long-
fought war against crime, the bill we are considering slashes the 
Administration's request for COPS funding by more than half, 
eliminating all funding for community prosecutors, reducing funding to 
help provide police with updated technology, and failing to provide any 
increase for community-based crime prevent programs.
  This is hardly a step forward. In fact, it is a step backward.
  The fact is, the COPS program works.
  I have seen the impact it has had in the area of middle and southwest 
Georgia that I have the privilege of representing, where COPS grants 
have provided communities $12.5 million to help employ 258 additional 
police officers. Predictably, the result of putting more police on the 
streets has been more arrests and less crime.
  If you ask why the country's crime rate has dramatically declined 
over the past few years, just ask our police officers and prosecutors 
and others on the front lines of the war against crime. They will tell 
you that a number of factors have contributed. But they will also tell 
you that the ``COPS'' program has been one of the biggest factors of 
all. So far, ``COPS'' grants have put 60,000 more police officers on 
community streets, and there is enough funding in the pipeline to reach 
100,000 over the next couple of years. And if adequate funding is 
provided, we can still reach out goal of adding 150,000 officers by 
2005.
  While the crime rate is dropping, we should be aware of the fact that 
our criminal justice system has many unmet needs. At the same time, 
there are signs that the crime rate may be bottoming out, particularly 
among young people. It is a mistake to think we have already won the 
war against crime. If the country lets its guard down, there is every 
reason to believe the crime rate could begin to rise again.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to reject a level of COPS funding 
that fails to meet the needs of the law enforcement community and, 
instead, to enact a level that will enable our police agencies and 
court system to continue gaining ground against the forces of crime, 
which cause so much human suffering and economic damage in Georgia and 
throughout the country at-large.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  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 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 15 minutes.

[[Page 12024]]

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4690

       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, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can minimize debate on a lot of amendments, 
and so I would like to get something off my chest early in the process 
so I do not have to keep popping up and down and offering a dozen 
amendments to do that.
  We are at a watershed time in the history of this country. 
Internationally, our adversary, the Soviet Union, is gone. The Cold War 
is over. Their conventional military capability has collapsed, and we 
are facing a new paradigm.
  In the last century, over 600,000 Americans were killed in combat 
defending democracy. We fought two world wars and a lot of other big 
wars. Today, we have a new role. Today, conflicts are likely to be more 
regionalized, and our job will be to contain those conflicts. And our 
job often will be to serve as peacekeepers and peacemakers rather than 
warmakers.
  That is not going to be neat. It is going to be messy. Some Americans 
will die. But if we do it right, and if the executive and legislative 
branches of government cooperate, and if we cooperate with our allies, 
the price that America winds up paying for participation in world 
affairs will be far less than the price that we paid in the last 
century. In my view, this bill gets in the way of that.
  This bill pretends, for instance, that an appropriations subcommittee 
can arbitrarily dictate what peacekeeping operations are voted by the 
Security Council of the United Nations and what peacekeeping operations 
the United States will support. Now, I do not agree with every 
peacekeeping operation that has been undertaken, but Congress cannot 
micromanage those questions. They can participate and they can help 
with consultation, but they cannot micromanage those without being 
destructive of our national interest.
  Domestically, we similarly face a new paradigm. Since 1981, and the 
first Reagan budget, we have had 18 years of triple digit deficits; and 
at the same time, the gap between the wealthiest 2 percent of people 
and everybody else in this society has exploded. Now we have a new 
situation. We have huge new surpluses instead of huge deficits. This is 
a precious moment when, with enough vision, we can repair the seams 
that have held this society together for over 200 years. We can prepare 
for a new sustained period of economic growth and prosperity, and we 
dare not screw it up.
  I would ask the question: With the wealthiest 1 percent of persons in 
this society already controlling more assets than 90 percent of all 
Americans combined, will we insist, really, that we are going to 
provide huge additional tax cuts for those folks; or will we decide, 
instead, to have better targeted and more disciplined tax cuts so that 
we have enough left to meet the basic needs of all of our people, 
including some of those who have been left behind in the area of health 
care, in the area of prescription drugs, in the area of housing? And 
are we going to make the needed investments that we need to make in 
science and in education to make this economy the wonderful arena for 
opportunity that it can be?
  We have a third new paradigm in that new economy. We have had an 
incredible transformation in the way this economy works. The market 
capitalization of all publicly held corporations has grown in a handful 
of years from $4 trillion to almost $14 trillion. And in that process 
the power of some private companies to totally dominate the economy and 
crush competitor and consumer alike has grown to a proportion we have 
never yet seen. And whether the issue is gas prices, or whether the 
issue is in other fields, the question is whether or not consumers are 
going to be allowed to have the niceties of a competitive market or 
not.
  Now, government has an obligation most of all to know what is 
happening in this economy. We need to know its true size. We need to 
know what is really happening with price changes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. We need to know what is happening with production changes. 
And the effect that this bill has on our ability to know all of that is 
decimated because we are cutting the budgets of the agencies that do 
the statistical analysis to tell us what is really happening. Just one 
question for example: How do we really tell the price of a product when 
the nature of that product is being changed every 3 months, as 
computers are, for instance?
  The second thing I would like to say is that the fundamental right of 
any business in an economy is a free marketplace. That is as important 
to each and every business as the Bill of Rights is to every individual 
in this country. And yet at the very time that this economy is creating 
tremendous opportunities, it is also creating tremendous possibilities 
for anti-competitive practices to go unpunished and unregulated in the 
marketplace. And this bill makes that problem worse because it cuts the 
funds that are needed to police the anti-competitive practices of many 
of those corporations, including, just for one example, the oil 
companies, which are the subject of so much suspicion today.
  We have one more challenge; that is the challenge of globalization. 
How do we compete with countries with different cultures, different 
economies, and a different understanding about what the rules of the 
game ought to be? When we do something like pass the China trade bill, 
as we passed last week, we have an obligation to provide the resources 
to enforce the rules that we say we are going to hold other nations to, 
and this bill cuts back on that effort as well.
  This time is not a time of crisis. It is a time of unparalleled 
opportunity, if we use our surpluses the right way. If we can restrain 
the impulse to give tax cuts away to everyone in this society, 
including those who need it the least, and focus those tax cuts, 
instead, on those who need it the most, we can have room in the budget 
to strengthen Social Security, to fill in the gaps in health care, we 
can strengthen public education, we can assure a competitive 
marketplace, and we can create a sense of shared prosperity and create 
a new generation of progress which will stand with us for years to 
come.
  The problem with this bill is that it, along with five or six others 
that we have passed so far, denies us the opportunity to use this 
precious moment to do what is necessary to knit this country together 
again in a united fashion for the entire coming generation. That is the 
failure of this bill, and we will outline those failures as we go 
through section to section, but that is the failure that has to be 
corrected before we will support this or any other major appropriation 
bill.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I would like to address the gentleman about a problem that I have 
been working on. It is a real threat to our families today. I have been 
working to find a way to ensure the enforcement of Federal statutes for 
the prosecution of illegal pornography.
  With the advent of the Internet, material that is illegal under both 
State and Federal statutes has been allowed to continue to grow 
unchecked as the Department of Justice has looked the other way, and 
now is the time for Congress to act on this most important issue.
  Adult entertainment sites on the Internet account for the third 
largest sector of sales in cyberspace, with an estimated $1 billion to 
$2 billion per year in revenue. Given the aggressive

[[Page 12025]]

marketing techniques of the adult entertainment industry, it should be 
no surprise that a recent study of children ages 10 to 17 revealed that 
one in five of our children have been solicited for sex over the 
Internet in the last year. And the average age of children continues to 
decline, of those that are exposed, or have their initial exposure to 
pornography. It is now down to 11 years old.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky to commit with 
me to work to ensure funding for the prosecution of illegal pornography 
under Federal statutes by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Division 
of the Department of Justice.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this very 
important issue, and one that we all recognize is a growing problem.

                              {time}  1515

  I will be happy to work with him to ensure that sufficient funding is 
given to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Program within the 
Department of Justice.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and would remind all of my colleagues that mothers and fathers across 
this country will be watching our actions and the actions of the 
Department of Justice on this very important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $84,177,000, 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 2000: 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 may utilize non-
     reimbursable details of career employees within the caps 
     described in the aforementioned proviso: 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.

                     joint automated booking system

       For expenses necessary for the nationwide deployment of a 
     Joint Automated Booking System including automated capability 
     to transmit fingerprint and image data, $1,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                       narrowband communications

       For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications as 
     mandated by section 104 of the National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 
     903(d)(1)), including the cost for operation and maintenance 
     of Land Mobile Radio legacy systems, $177,445,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Serrano

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano:
       Page 3, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $82,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $23,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 71, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $134,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $130,425,000)''.
       Page 92, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $975,000)''.
       Page 92, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,600,000)''.

  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, here we go again. For the sixth year in a 
row, the FY 2001 Commerce-Justice bill includes only $141 million for 
the Legal Services Corporation. This is $164 million below the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriation of $305 million and $199 million below the 
President's fiscal year 2001 request of $340 million.
  When it was first presented to the House in fiscal year 1996, $141 
million represented one-third of the prior year's level. But it has 
since become a meaningless number.
  For each of the past 5 years, a floor amendment offered by the 
ranking member of the subcommittee and supported by a bipartisan 
majority has raised the funding level for the LSC to about $250 million 
by shifting funds within the bill. Action by the Senate and in 
conference has typically resulted in a more realistic, but still 
meager, final appropriation.
  However, as funding allocations for the bill have gotten increasingly 
tight, it has become much harder to find accounts to cut as offsets for 
the add-back for LSC. And by now, the $250 million level that the House 
has typically adopted is far short of the amount needed to provide 
needed legal assistance to the country's poor and disadvantaged.
  It baffles me that some of our colleagues object to a Nixon-era 
entity, the role of which is to assure that low-income Americans have 
access to the civil justice system, surely a basic human and 
constitutional right, and which raises substantial non-Federal 
resources and promotes pro bono service by private lawyers to increase 
legal assistance to the poor.
  It was one thing to identify problems with LSC that certainly 
existed, but these problems have for the most part been fixed.
  In fiscal year 1996, for example, Congress enacted reforms requiring 
competitive bidding for all grants and accounts and imposing 
restrictions on the kinds of cases LSC grantees may engage in. Grantees 
remain prohibited from abortion, redistricting, or class-action 
litigation, from representing prisoners or undocumented immigrants, 
from welfare reform advocacy, and from any sort of lobbying.
  The cases LSC does work on include domestic violence, child abuse and 
neglect, as well as child custody and visitation, foreclosures and 
evictions, access to health care, bankruptcy, wage, unemployment and 
disability claims, consumer fraud, and similar problems faced by low-
income individuals and families.
  During 1999, LSC closed more than 924,000 such cases, the 
overwhelming majority concerning women and children. That 924,000 
figure shows how LSC responded to a problem by moving to correct it. 
LSC guidance on the definition of a ``case'' for purposes of case 
service reports, CSR, has become out of date and unclear, which led 
some grantees to report as cases activities that were not.
  LSC responded by providing new instructions guidance, training, 
requiring grantees to self-inspect their CSR data, increasing oversight 
to test grantee compliance, and following up where grantees need to 
take corrective action.
  Based on what LSC learned during this process, they were able to 
adjust the million-plus cases reported in 1999 by the estimated 11 
percent error rate to arrive at the more accurate figure.
  Anyway, Mr. Chairman, this year I am offering an amendment to 
increase LSC funding by $134 million, from $141 to $275 million. This 
increase would be offset by cutting $82 million from Narrowband 
Communications, which would otherwise receive a nearly 75 percent 
increase; $23 million from the Assets Forfeiture Fund, which was one of 
my offsets last year; $10 million

[[Page 12026]]

from the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account of the State 
Department, an account of $2.7 billion; and $45 million from the 
Salaries and Expenses Account of the Bureau of Prisons, which is re-
estimating the amount of funding that it will likely carry over into 
fiscal year 2001.
  Let me just say that, as with last year, I am not wedded to these 
offsets and expect these and other accounts will be adjusted as we 
proceed to conference.
  The House has repeatedly rejected $141 million as insufficient for 
the important work the Legal Services Corporation does. I urge my 
colleagues to do so again by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join as the second sponsor of this answer to prevent 
the devastating 54-percent cut in Legal Services Corporation funding.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House before voting on this 
Draconian 54-percent cut in Legal Services should walk across the way 
and read the words etched on the Supreme Court of the United States. 
They say, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Because if this amendment is 
defeated, there will be no equal justice in America. Our poorest 
people, our most vulnerable people, will be shut out of the courts if 
we wipe out Legal Services.
  Congress has already cut Legal Services 30 percent since 1995. If we 
enact this cut on top of that, thousands and thousands of domestic 
violence victims, neglected children, vulnerable senior citizens, and 
people with disabilities would have absolutely no access to civil 
justice.
  As a sponsor of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to restore 
Legal Services funding to the same level funding as this fiscal year. 
Unfortunately, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) explained, 
we were only able to find offsets to bring the funding up to $275 
million, which is $30 million less than current funding and $65 million 
less than the request.
  So even if we pass this amendment today to restore partial funding, 
we are still experiencing a real cut, a reduction of 11 percent over 
this year's funding.
  Last year, critics of Legal Services were down here on the floor, and 
I am sure we are going to hear the same songs sung out of the same hymn 
book today, arguing that Legal Services should be cut because some 
local programs were confused about the proper method of case reporting. 
Remember the arguments?
  Well, my colleagues, that problem has been fixed. That problem has 
been resolved. Legal Services has educated the local programs about the 
proper method of reporting cases, and it as is vigorously ensuring 
there is accuracy and consistency in reporting. So there is no more 
problem in reporting cases.
  Also, it is time to set the record straight about the misleading, 
outdated charges by Legal Services critics, and I am here sure we are 
going to hear more of that here today, who ignore the fact that the 
Legal Services Corporation was already reformed by Congress in 1996.
  Remember in 1996, those of my colleagues who were here, we enacted 
tight restrictions on Legal Services. So there are no class action 
suits anymore, no lobbying, no legal assistance to illegal aliens, no 
political activity, no prisoner litigation, no redistricting 
representation, no collection of attorney's fees, and no representation 
of people evicted from public housing due to drugs. Although I am sure 
we are going to hear critics complaining about Legal Services attorneys 
bringing those cases, it does not happen.
  I hope we have an honest debate on the merits today of Legal 
Services. Those restrictions, Mr. Chairman, are in permanent law and 
are restated once again in this bill. And 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.
  So there is no argument about a fungibility any longer. If they 
violate these restrictions, in fact, attorneys can be disbarred and 
programs lose their LSC funding and their ability to apply for funding 
in the future. So I think we have taken care of those extracurricular 
activities that we limited back in 1996.
  Some critics also continue to point to a few isolated cases that 
appear to be abusive, and may have been in the past, but in these cases 
the facts show that no LSC program was generally involved or the LSC is 
enforcing sanctions against the abuses. But even if those alleged 
abuses are true, and we are going to hear about that again today, these 
are only a mere handful of aberrations in a program with countless 
success stories of service to people who need access to civil justice, 
domestic violence victims, children in need of support, and seniors, 
people with disabilities in danger of losing services that they need 
just to survive.
  Now, in my home State of Minnesota, I am thankful support for legal 
aid by the Bar Association, the State Bar, the general public, and the 
legislature is strong. But even in Minnesota, local programs last year 
had to turn away 20,000 people because of the scarce resources and 
another 58,000 did not even file a claim, did not even pursue their 
case because there are not enough resources.
  So we all know what is going on in this country. There are not enough 
resources at the current level of funding to help people and to make 
those words on the Supreme Court meaningful, ``Equal Justice Under 
Law.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, let us not shut the courthouse door to poor people 
in America. Let us give the most vulnerable Americans their day in 
court like every other American.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the fine work of both the 
subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  At the same time, I, too, want to express my disappointment to have 
to participate once again in what has become an annual ritual in which 
the Committee on Appropriations slashes funding for Legal Services and 
the House restores it.
  While I regret the necessity for this amendment, its passage is 
absolutely critical; and I am proud once again to join with the ranking 
member and the gentleman from Minnesota in offering it.
  Last year, LSC provided support to 237 local Legal Services programs 
serving every county and congressional district in America. Ninety-
seven percent of the funds we appropriated went directly to local 
programs. This appropriation is truly a lifeline for hundreds of 
thousands of people with no other means of access to the legal system.
  Last year alone, Legal Services closed nearly one million cases 
brought on behalf of some two million individuals.
  Now, who are these people? Over two-thirds are women, and most 
mothers with children, women seeking protection against abuse of 
spouses, children living in poverty and neglect, elderly people 
threatened with eviction or victimized by consumer fraud, veterans 
denied benefits, and small farmers in America facing foreclosure.
  Let me tell my colleagues about one recent case in my own 
congressional district. A woman, whom I will call Pauline, was married 
to a man I will call Frank. Frank, on a regular basis, brutalized 
Pauline in front of their two children. After repeated exposure to this 
behavior, the children became fearful and disruptive in the 
schoolhouse.
  Eventually, after one particularly brutal beating, Pauline sought 
help from Legal Services for Cape Cod and the islands. They helped her 
get a divorce and a permanent abuse prevention order. Since then she 
has managed to put her life back together, and now the children are 
excelling in school and their behavior problems have ceased.

                              {time}  1530

  These are the kinds of people who will be hurt if this amendment is 
not

[[Page 12027]]

adopted today. If LSC is forced to absorb the huge cuts made in 
committee, over 200 of the 925 neighborhood Legal Services offices will 
have to be closed. This will leave one Legal Services lawyer to service 
every 23,600 poor and disadvantaged Americans. Over 250,000 families in 
need of legal services will have to be turned away. Nevertheless, as 
the gentleman from Minnesota suggested, we will hear from some critics 
of LSC that we should cut the funding for the program. Why? Because a 
few local grant recipients overstated the number of cases they handled 
back in 1997, chiefly by reporting telephone referrals as cases. Never 
mind the fact that the agency itself uncovered the problem, the agency 
itself brought it to the attention of the Congress, and the agency 
itself moved speedily to correct it. Never mind the fact that despite 
the cries of fraud and abuse, neither LSC nor its affiliates derive any 
financial gain from erroneous reports because case numbers have no 
bearing on the program's funding goals. Allocations are based on 
eligible population living in each service area, not on the numbers of 
cases handled or even referred. This has been pointed out, yet 
repeatedly the allegations continue to be made.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Delahunt was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, there is a wonderful irony in those 
figures, because 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 whom it is unable to help. And even without 
the proposed cuts, referrals must be made in many thousands of cases 
because current funding needs meet only the needs of 20 percent of 
those who are eligible. Let me suggest that that is unconscionable. 
When we speak of justice for all, remember that we are denying it to oh 
so many in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a crucially 
important vote. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members will remember that last year, those of us 
who are interested in this particular issue and I, notwithstanding some 
tremendous reservation that I had, supported and voted for and spoke on 
behalf of the amendment to increase last year's budget for Legal 
Services. I did so even though I knew there was a cloud, a gigantic 
cloud, over the Legal Services arena by reason of rumor and factual 
information based on rumor and then facts, rumors and all of that put 
together in statistical reports that there was a tremendous 
overreporting of cases rampant throughout the system.
  I did so, and I stated, I am going to give the Legal Services the 
benefit of the doubt. I am going to vote for the increase in the 
funding notwithstanding these doubts, because if an increase is based, 
as all the time we see on the floor it is based when we are asking for 
increases on increased workload, then it is not justified at all. But I 
was still willing to give the Legal Services the benefit of the doubt 
and voted in support of that increase.
  Then my committee, which has jurisdiction over this subject matter, 
conducted hearings. We found indeed that that overreporting, which was 
only rumor, that overreporting which people scoffed at as being 
clerical error, was indeed the fact and that we had to deal with it. We 
were buttressed by information that was presented to us at that hearing 
by the statistics gathered by the IG within the Legal Services 
Corporation which found, and I am quoting from the chart here, 
overstated cases in the thousands. In cases where there were actual 
files but no services actually rendered, 30,053 cases. What does that 
mean? It means that in 30,000 cases, no services were rendered and 
overreporting.
  Those who say that these statistics do not matter are blind to the 
fact that an increase in funding is supposed to systematically go for 
the increased workload. So either they were overfunded last time or 
they are properly funded this time. That is why I have to oppose the 
amendment and to fulfill my pledge in front of the committee when I 
stated that I was not going to support an increase in the funding this 
year but to remain steadfast and support the recommendation of the 
committee for the level of funding.
  I must say, in addition to this, for all those who would doubt it, I 
am a supporter of Legal Services. From the very beginning, from a year 
in service where in Pennsylvania it was unheard of and became a product 
of State justice for Pennsylvania to undergo a Legal Services program, 
I was in on the ground floor of that movement and I support it today. 
The only differences I have had over the years is the methodology of 
providing those legal services to the poor. No one is going to be able 
to with any veracity claim that I am an opponent of Legal Services, and 
that is why it becomes important for me to note that I did support the 
effort last year on the extra funding. I do not this year, for the same 
rationale, my deep interest in making the Legal Services work and to 
have the confidence of the taxpayer and to have the confidence of the 
people who must make use of it.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Serrano-Ramstad-
Delahunt amendment that would restore some of the proposed cut in the 
Legal Services Corporation budget that the committee has brought to the 
floor. The Serrano amendment is desperately needed and we must pass 
this amendment. I am proud to stand with them in this regard.
  I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, the previous speaker, with whom I served for several 
years in the Pennsylvania House and for whom I have the highest regard. 
I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that 
the issue is not the question of phantom caseloads or of problems from 
1997 or 1995 or any other year. The problem is what will these cuts do 
to Legal Services in 2001? What will be the impact in our communities 
if we cut Federal support for Legal Services by over 50 percent? I 
would suggest to the gentleman and to the Members of the House that the 
impact will be dramatic.
  Let me talk a little about Legal Services in Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania, where I come from. The Montgomery County Legal Aid 
Society has already had its Federal support cut from a high of $300,000 
per year to $200,000 a year. If this proposed cut goes through, they 
will be cut again to $100,000 a year. Their caseload in the past has 
been as high as 2,000 cases a year; but that has been reduced by 250 or 
300 cases because of the cuts from 1995 they have already had to absorb 
in Federal support. If this cut goes through, they will have to reduce 
their caseload another 250 or 300 cases a year.
  Now, this is a county that is actually pretty fortunate, because it 
is in a State, Pennsylvania, that has increased support for legal aid. 
While the Federal support in Montgomery County is $200,000 a year, the 
State support is another $200,000 a year; and Montgomery County 
government provides $300,000 a year to the Montgomery County Legal Aid 
Society. Private lawyers and the county bar association provide another 
$100,000. We are better off than many counties that have a lower level 
of local resources available to support such a necessary program.
  But the problem is that when this Federal support is reduced, the 
impact is not on phantom cases. We are not sending a message to 
bureaucrats. We are not reading the riot act to the people that run 
Legal Services Corporation in Washington. We are reducing services to 
people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and across this Nation. Most 
of these people that will lose services will be women. Two-thirds of 
the clients of Legal Services are women, poor women, working poor 
women. These are women that need help with protection from abuse cases. 
These are women that need help in consumer fraud cases. These are women

[[Page 12028]]

that need help with financial problems, women that need help with 
foreclosures, women that need legal services. This cut will deny in my 
county another 250 or 300 cases from being represented for poor people 
and the working poor in my county.
  We have a principle in this country of equal justice for all. To make 
that principle come true, we have to give equal access to the courts 
for all. The bill attacks that principle. This amendment would correct 
that problem and would provide adequate funding for legal services.
  I support the Serrano amendment and urge the House to do the same.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore funding 
for the Legal Services Corporation. Justice for some is no justice at 
all. As my colleagues may recall, the Legal Services Corporation was 
created in 1974 to provide financial support for legal assistance in 
civil proceedings to persons unable to afford legal services. Legal 
services for people who cannot afford it.
  The Legal Services Corporation is the Government's vital and often 
only link between our disadvantaged constituents and meaningful access 
to the courts and our legal system. Too many in our Nation lack real 
access to our justice system. Access to the justice system and righting 
a wrong should not be a privilege of the wealthy but instead a right 
for all.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of 
the Committee on Commerce, I am among the first to go after fraud and 
abuse. However, we must remember that it is also our job to correct the 
mismanagements within government programs to ensure that these programs 
continue to fulfill their obligation.
  A number of years ago, yes, there were problems with the Legal 
Services. But with Congress' help, the Committee on the Judiciary 
adopted a number of significant restrictions and restructuring; and in 
fact now the Legal Services Corporation has become an institution that 
the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, can be proud of. We must 
continue to invest in this important program that continues to fulfill 
the American principle of equal justice under the law.
  I welcome this opportunity to highlight a few of the examples of how 
the Legal Services Corporation has benefited my district in Michigan. 
The Legal Aid Bureau of Southwest Michigan helped a mother of three 
keep her home and avoid eviction after a corrupt landlord alleged 
nonpayment of rent. In fact, the family's rent was paid up to date. 
However, the landlord applied the rent to the cost of water repairs 
that were actually his fault, not the family's. Through the assistance 
of the Legal Aid Bureau, the court dismissed the fraudulent claim and 
awarded the family enough money to relocate. Without this assistance, 
who knows where they would be today?
  Two mentally disabled constituents rented a condemned apartment and 
their slumlord threatened to physically throw them out. Through court 
action, the Legal Aid Bureau retrieved all of the money which my 
constituents had paid to the slumlord. I ask who would represent these 
people if it were not for Legal Services?
  The governor of the State of Michigan, John Engler, understands the 
importance of providing legal assistance to low-income residents. I 
have a letter from the Michigan governor in support of providing long-
term stable financial support for civil legal aid. He recognizes that 
in Michigan only 20 percent of the civil legal needs of low-income 
residents are being met. In Michigan, there is one lawyer for every 340 
folks. However, there is only one civil aid lawyer for every 6,500 
citizens with low income.
  I encourage my colleagues to remember that access to the justice 
system and righting a wrong should not be a privilege of the wealthy 
but a right to all. Please support this amendment to ensure that all 
Americans have access to our justice system. Justice for some is no 
justice at all.
                                                State of Michigan,


                                       Office of the Governor,

     Lansing, MI, October 4, 1999.
       Dear Friends: As Governor and a Michigan attorney, I 
     endorse the State Bar of Michigan's Access to Justice for All 
     (ATJ) Development Campaign. I have delivered my pledge to the 
     ATJ Campaign and am writing today to encourage all members of 
     the State Bar to do so as well.
       Only 20 percent of the civil legal needs of Michigan low-
     income residents are being met, despite the volunteer service 
     of many lawyers and the civil legal aid programs in our 
     communities. Although there is one lawyer for every 340 
     people in Michigan, there is only one civil legal aid lawyer 
     for every 6,500 citizens with low-income. This affects 1.5 
     million Michigan residents who qualify for civil legal aid.
       These low-income families need legal assistance on 
     essential family, housing and consumer issues. We expect all 
     Michigan residents to use our institutions to resolve their 
     disputes, and we must make certain that everyone has 
     meaningful access to our justice system.
       Across Michigan, lawyers are taking the lead to address 
     this important issue. The ATJ Development Campaign, a 
     permanent endowment using private funds, has been established 
     by the State Bar to ameliorate this societal problem. 
     Earnings from the endowment will be distributed to our 
     community legal aid programs, allowing the principal to grow. 
     The State Bar is underwriting the costs of this bold 
     development campaign for the first three years.
       The ATJ Development Campaign will provide long term, stable 
     financial support for civil legal aid. Additionally, the 
     State Bar is undertaking other unique initiatives to give 
     Michigan a stronger, more efficient and effective legal aid 
     system.
       That State Bar's ATJ Campaign is historic. No other state 
     bar has undertaken a comparable development campaign. In 
     recognition, the American Bar Association awarded the 
     prestigious Harrison Tweed Award to the State Bar of 
     Michigan.
       Please join me and deliver your pledge to the ATJ Campaign. 
     Justice for some is no justice at all.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Engler,
                                                         Governor.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-
Delahunt amendment. America has a 25-year commitment to helping those 
who cannot afford legal assistance and it is outrageous that today's 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill severely cuts back on this 
commitment.
  For my colleagues who are not satisfied that every single mistake has 
been corrected that this legal assistance group has made in the past, I 
ask my colleagues, do we cut the Defense budget by 50 percent when the 
Defense Department loses their records and costs this country millions 
and billions of dollars? Of course, we do not.
  By providing the Legal Services Corporation with less than half of 
its current funding, 50 percent less, this bill is effectively denying 
low-income individuals, including women, seniors, and veterans access 
to legal advice and representation that they need, help that they must 
have.
  Mr. Chairman, Legal Services funding has a direct impact on thousands 
and thousands of peoples' lives, and this amendment will put some of 
the money back. It will help low-income individuals. It will 
particularly help low-income mothers, mothers who are victims of 
domestic violence, mothers whose fathers, husbands, their children's 
fathers who have abandoned them. It will help these individuals fight 
back and regain control of their lives.
  Legal Services Corporation-funded programs provide these women, 
victims of domestic violence, with more legal assistance than any other 
organization across this Nation.
  This base legislation tells women and tells their children that they 
are not a priority. How can we do this? I urge my colleagues, join 
together and vote for this amendment. Vote to increase funding for 
legal services to help veterans, to help seniors, to help mothers and 
to help their children.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Serrano-Ramstad-
Delahunt amendment to increase some funding for Legal Services 
Corporation.
  The Legal Services Corporation is very important in assisting 
vulnerable

[[Page 12029]]

people in our society. 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 a loss of necessary financial 
resources for food, maintenance, and health care.
  To give one example from my own district, as a result of domestic 
violence and in fear for her safety and that of her 5 children, a woman 
left her husband of 15 years. He had been the primary support for the 
family; and she was able, on her own, to obtain housing although it was 
still neither decent nor safe. Yet, because of her financial situation, 
she was threatened with eviction.
  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 neglect or abuse ranges from a child being left alone by a 
parent or 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 children who have been 
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, 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 very heart of what we value in this country, decent housing, 
adequate health care, food and a safe environment.
  Because of the importance of safety in our society, these legal 
service programs have supported legislation to prevent abuse and to 
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 that courtroom door 
to seek the judicial protection of their rights that they deserve.
  We must assure that sufficient funds are available, and I, therefore, 
support very strongly and urge support by my colleagues for this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________