[Pages H10377-H10408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2670, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 335 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 335

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 335 is a typical rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2670, the conference report for the Commerce,
State, Justice appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be
considered as read.
House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally between
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations and one motion to recommit with or without instructions,
as is the right of the minority.
I want to discuss briefly the conference report that this rule makes
in order. The conference report appropriates a total of $37.8 billion
for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Federal
judiciary and 18 related agencies, and focuses on the enhancement of
numerous crime enforcement and crime reduction initiatives.
First, I want to say that I am pleased that the bill provides $3
billion for State and local law enforcement assistance so that local
officials can successfully continue their efforts to fight crimes
against our citizens. This provision is $37 million more than last
year, including $287 million for juvenile crime and prevention
programs; $523

[[Page H10378]]

million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, which was
terminated in the President's request; $250 million for the Juvenile
Accountability and Intensive Block Grant, which was also terminated in
the President's request; $686 million for Truth in Sentencing State
Prison Grants, which the President also requested we terminate.
Conferees also provided $552 million for the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant program, which was $92
million more than the President requested.
I am also pleased that the committee has provided $3 billion in
direct funding, a $460 million increase over FY 1999, to enforce our
immigration laws. The conferees have included funding for 1,000 new
border patrol agents, increased detention of criminal and illegal
aliens, and the continuation of naturalization backlog reduction and
interior enforcement initiatives. The conference report also includes
$585 million to reimburse States for the incarceration of illegal
aliens.
Finally, I want to point out the good work done by the committee in
providing $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration to
continue the fight against drugs in our neighborhoods. This $70 million
increase over last year indicates our commitment to win the war on
drugs, and I commend the committee for this increase and funding
enhancements to bolster this Nation's enforcement strategy and drug
intelligence capabilities.
This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule today on the floor so we may
proceed with the general debate and consideration of this important
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
for yielding me the time.
This rule waives all points of order against the consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 2670. Though better than the original House
version, the conference report falls very short. The President has not
agreed to sign it. This bill slashes spending in the community-oriented
policing program which helps local law enforcement agencies hire more
police officers and reduce crime. It drops the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, which was included in the Senate version of the bill. This
provision is aimed at reducing crimes motivated by hatred and bigotry.
Most disappointing to me is the requirement in the bill that United
Nations arrearage payments are subject to an authorization. Our country
must pay the back dues we owe to the United Nations. This funding is
too important to hold it hostage to an authorization bill that might or
might not ever pass.

{time} 1115

The United Nations is running out of money at a time when demand is
greater for its peace-keeping activities. We all know about the
horrible tragedies in Kosovo and East Timor and Sierra Leone. In all of
these cases, the U.N. played a critical role in reducing military
conflict and saving lives. Failure to pay our dues will ultimately
hamper the U.N.'s ability to maintain its role as a world peacekeeper.
Lives are at stake.
I recently met with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke. He
has made payment of the U.S. debt to the U.N. one of his top
priorities. Mr. Speaker, our integrity is at stake. The United States
owes the money to the U.N.
Our ability to influence world decisions is at stake. Unless we pay
our back dues, the United States will lose our vote in the General
Assembly.
Our honor is at stake. Our position as a world leader will be
diminished if we turn our back on the United Nations.
This is not a question of money. The money is already in the bill.
The question is whether this Nation is going to stop playing games and
pay our debt.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule
and the conference report, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), for yielding me the time.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers)
for the superb job he has done in what is obviously a very difficult
and challenging situation.
This bill is a very important measure as we look at a number of
critical items that are out there for us to address.
First and foremost for me, as a Californian, I have got to say that
the $585 million that is included in here for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Plan, known as SCAAP, is very, very high on our priority
list, because if we look at the problems of illegal immigration, which
have been very great, the Federal Government has a responsibility to
step up to the plate and meet those obligations. They should not be
thrust onto the shoulders of State and local taxpayers.
The other issue that is very key is that of international trade. Also
as a Californian, I have got to say that our State is the gateway to
the Pacific Rim and Latin America. Within this bill are very important
items dealing with the facilitation of international trade, creating
new exports for new markets for U.S. products and services.
We have just gotten the report this morning of the strengthening of
economies in the Pacific Rim; and through that, they have been able to
purchase more U.S. goods and services. We need to do what we can to
facilitate that, and that is done in this bill.
Also, another issue that is of very great importance to me and for us
nationally in looking at situations that exist around the world, back
in 1985, Ronald Reagan envisioned the establishment of the National
Endowment for Democracy. It was to say that simply dealing with weapons
systems was not going to bring about freedom and political pluralism.
We had to put into place the infrastructure, the institutions that are
necessary for political pluralism to succeed. In fact, this bill does
just that.
The National Endowment for Democracy has had great success all over
the world. One of the countries we spend a great deal of time talking
about happens to be the problems that exist in the People's Republic of
China.
One of the core groups within the National Endowment for Democracy is
the International Republican Institute. Last night, there was a very
important freedom dinner that was held. I will say that I serve on the
board of that organization, and we have participated in 50 village
elections since 1994 in the People's Republic of China. We have been
encouraging non-Communist candidates there. We have had success at
letting people see for the first time that they can participate in
those kinds of political organizations. So this is a very important
measure. It deserves our support.
The rule is a very fair and standard rule for consideration of this
sort of conference report, and I hope my colleagues will support both.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is the former chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen who will handle this bill
shortly are both good legislators, and I regard them both as good
friends of mine. I think that they are bringing a conference bill back
to the House which is a far better bill than the one that left the
House. I wish I could vote for it, but I cannot. I would like to
explain the five reasons that require me to vote ``No.''
First of all, there is not nearly enough money in this bill for the
President's top anticrime priority, the Cops on the Street bill. I know
that the majority will cite various marginally or unrelated programs to
try to pump up artificially the impression that they have put a lot of
money in this bill for cops, but the hard reality is that, out of
$1.275 billion, that is, 1 billion 275 million dollars, that the
President has asked for this program in new money, he is only getting
$325 million. That is not enough. He is also not getting the funds he
asked for for community prosecutors.
Second reason, this bill, in a sense, has walked into an accident
that started out to happen to somebody else.

[[Page H10379]]

This bill tries to fund a lot of worthwhile programs, but it does so
with some pretty incredible gimmicks.
Example, we have to do a census under the Constitution every 10
years. This bill avoids counting $4 billion in spending under the
budget ceiling by designating the census funding as being emergency
spending. I guess we did not know that the clock was going to tick and
that we were going to run into another 10-year census requirement.
There are other gimmicks. We have delayed obligations for the crime
victims' fund. We have budget authority which seems to have
materialized out of authority. It has really been pulled out from other
bills, including Foreign Operations and Labor, Health and Social
Services, I suppose, which makes it more difficult to meet those
obligations.
Thirdly, this bill waives the Endangered Species Act in the case of
the controversy involving Alaska salmon. I find that a quaint provision
to be in this bill, and I think persons interested in that issue will
be startled to find it here.
Fourth, this bill resurrects an old debate that was on the Treasury,
Post Office appropriation bill. It resurrects an old provision that
limits the contraceptive services available to Federal employees in
order to try to mollify a Member who was unhappy with the result of the
conference on the Treasury, Post Office bill. That has no business on
this bill, and I think it will cause considerable controversy because
it is attached.
Fifth, I would ask my colleagues one question: What do the following
six countries have in common, Burundi, Somalia, Iraq, Haiti, Dominica,
and the United States of America? The answer is, thanks to this bill,
they will all lose their vote in the United Nations.
The other five countries have already lost their vote. The United
States will lose its vote because, while it appropriates the funds that
are necessary to pay our back-due bills at the United Nations, it does
not give the authorization to spend those funds until other legislative
decisions are made. As we well know, those decisions have been hung up
for 2 years.
So we have the continued spectacle of a majority party which has an
obligation to govern in conjunction with the President, instead,
throwing roadblocks in his way when it comes to foreign policy. The
same party that blew up the Test Ban Treaty last week, the same party
whose leader in the other body, or deputy leader, who told the
President, standing 6 feet away from him in the White House, that we
had no business engaging in military action against Mr. Milosevic. Then
after we had a successful conclusion in that operation, he then went to
the press and attacked the President for agreeing to a settlement that
left Mr. Milosevic in power. Now, that is the fastest U-turn I have
seen in my life in this place.
The same party that held up our contributions to the International
Monetary Fund at a time we desperately needed to try to stabilize the
currency situation in Asia last year in order to protect our own
economy. That same party is now saying that we are going to continue to
withhold our funds from the United Nations because of an unrelated
dispute with the President. That to me is illegitimate, and those are
the reasons why this bill is going nowhere. When it leaves here, this
bill will be vetoed by the President. When it is vetoed, it will be
sustained.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding this time. I want to take a couple of minutes only at this
point in the debate. I will reserve my main argument until we get to
the bill itself.
But I wanted to correct a couple of statements that the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has just made. In the COPS program, one of
the sticking points, admittedly, with the administration, the House-
passed bill contained $268 million. We agreed to the Senate version,
which is $325 million. But on top of that, we freed up another $250
million in carryover funds that were not being spent last year into the
COPS program. On top of that, we then added an additional $150 million
which the administration requested in the COPS technology program. We
funded that under the COPS program.
So lo and behold, all of a sudden, in the COPS program, there is not
the $325 million the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said
there was. There is $725 million.
We have gone a long way toward meeting the administration's problem
with this bill. We have gone more than halfway. I would hope that the
administration and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would
compliment us for that and, in fact, would quit this rampage against
this and all other spending bills, and realize there is an effort here
to try to meet them halfway and be reasonable.
We are trying to be fair with them. When we offer them fairness, they
come back with this tirade. I do not understand that kind of business.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on the subcommittee, my
ranking Democrat, has been perfectly capable in working with us. He has
worked in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way, as have we. With reward for
that, what we get from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is a
tirade. I do not work that way. We have tried to go more than halfway
on the COPS program, and we have.
Now, all the appropriators can do, speaking of U.N. arrears, all we
can do is provide money. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows
that above anybody. He is ranking on the full committee. We have laid
the money on the table, every single penny that it would take to pay
off our arrears at the U.N. We all want to do that. We laid the money
on the table. We are not the authorizing committee.
What is the Committee on International Relations of the House? It is
the authorizing committee. We said, here is the money. Pass an
authorization bill, and it will be paid. All we can do is offer the
money. We have done that. Every single penny to pay the U.N. arrears is
laying on the table. All they have to do is reach down, pick it up and
pay that bill, and it is all over with.
In addition, we have provided every single penny for our current dues
to the U.N. It is laying there ready to be paid when the President
signs the bill.

{time} 1130

All he has to do is sign this bill. We will pay the U.N. current
assessment, and we will pay the arrears. The President, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should recommend it to him; he can
sign the bill. The money is laying there. All he has to do is reach
down and pick it up. No worries about the votes in the U.N., no worries
about current assessments. All is at peace with the world. Just pick it
up and take it and pay the bills.
So I find it strange, I find it partisanly strange, that the
gentleman from Wisconsin takes the floor in a tirade against a bill
that we have gone so far in being fair in addressing the concerns of
the White House. And if the bill is vetoed, I assure the gentleman this
bill will come back in a much different form.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to respond.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say if the gentleman from
Kentucky thinks I launched a tirade against this bill, he has not seen
me when I am in a tirade mode.
Let me simply say that what the gentleman has just said is incorrect.
He says all we can do is provide the money. It is not the money that is
holding this up. The committee has put in the money and then it has
refused to waive the requirements for authorization, although it has
provided waivers for many other authorization requirements in the bill.
That is number one point of inconsistency.
The second point of inconsistency is simply that then, contrary to
what the gentleman said, his own committee has gone beyond the
authorization and interposed additional conditions of its own which
must be met for the release of those funds, conditions which the
gentleman well knows cannot be met, in part because Congress was so
obstructive on this matter last year and prevented the United Nations
from taking the actions necessary to free up the money.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) has 20 minutes remaining,

[[Page H10380]]

and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one very positive element in
this underlying bill, and I support the rule and the underlying bill
and would like to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the
gentleman from New York for their efforts on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on the night of September 7 in Pasco, Washington,
tragedy struck when a Washington State Patrol Officer, James Saunders,
was shot and killed in the line of duty while making a routine traffic
stop. The suspect in the shooting was an illegal alien who had a
history of criminal convictions in this country. In fact, the suspect
had been deported three different times by the U.S. Border Patrol and
was detained once again this year on a cocaine charge. However, instead
of remaining in jail under detention, he was allowed to post bail and
was released. This tragic mistake cost Trooper Saunders his life.
How could this criminal be set free? The details of his release are
still coming to light; but unfortunately, it appears that the border
patrol officer who had detained the suspect in the past was transferred
to Arizona and unable to identify the suspect and place him in
immigration detention. We must ensure that these ill-conceived
transfers of agents that needlessly remove knowledgeable agents from a
post for extended periods of time do not continue. It is time to stop
robbing Peter to pay Paul in our border enforcement strategy.
Just 1 week before the tragic death of Trooper Saunders, I joined my
colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), in a letter to INS
Commissioner Doris Meissner stating our disappointment that she had
reinstated these inappropriate transfers from the northern border to
the southern border. As a result of these transfers, our northern
border is understaffed, leading to decreased enforcement. I am deeply
saddened and outraged that our concerns were proved true by the killing
of Trooper Saunders.
Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation nor anything that this House
considers can bring back Trooper Saunders or help his pregnant wife and
2-year-old daughter come to terms expressing his unnecessary death; but
we can ensure that the border patrol is given adequate manpower and
resources to keep illegal aliens locked up until deportation and ensure
that, once deported, these illegal aliens do not reenter the United
States.
The underlying legislation goes a long way towards ensuring this
goal. The fiscal year 2000 conference report contains funding for 1,000
new border patrol agents and increases detention for criminal and
illegal aliens. I urge the committee to ensure that this year the INS
goes forward with the mandate to strengthen our border patrol by hiring
those officers as soon as possible. We must do everything possible to
hopefully spare another community the senseless tragedy the family of
Trooper Saunders and the local citizens must now endure.
Once again I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for an
excellent piece of legislation and urge support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue of
critical importance to our Nation, the upcoming decennial census of the
population of the U.S., a constitutionally mandated activity, which
will be the largest peace-time mobilization ever undertaken by our
Nation.
The administration requested $4.5 billion this fiscal year in order
to count everyone in our country. The conference report before us today
contains all but about $11 million of that request, and I commend the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work with the
other body in providing the necessary funds.
I also commend the chairman in that this bill contains none of the
onerous, contentious language prohibiting the use of modern statistical
methods which has been in previous CJS conference reports. While this
report still designates the funding for the 2000 census as emergency
funding, if all the funding was not there, then it truly would be an
emergency. So I am glad the funding is there, whatever the designation.
However, a number of important problems remain. First and foremost is
the language in the conference report regarding frameworks which would
require the Census Bureau to go through a long and complex process
before shifting money from one activity in the decennial census to
another, for example, for spending money on census takers or additional
computers.
Such congressional micromanagement is unprecedented in the decennial
census. A programming request could take months. In fact, the most
recent request in the Commerce Department took 7 months. But the 2000
census cannot possibly operate under that kind of framework. The census
is a massive undertaking which must be completed on an extremely tight
time frame. A Congress of 535 Members cannot possibly make the
decisions necessary or quickly enough to cover the unpredictable events
which might occur.
In conclusion, this restrictive language must be removed, and,
hopefully, the President will remove this language when he vetoes this
bill. I call upon my colleagues to vote against the bill for the
funding for the U.N. and the cops on our streets.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for the purpose of a response.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
If the gentlewoman would hear me. The gentlewoman is concerned about
the earmarked monies by category in the census appropriations. The
gentlewoman would understand that is what we do in every agency. That
is a routine practice of the Congress, when the gentlewoman was in the
majority and as well here. We are an oversight committee. That is done
in every single agency that we have.
I talked to the Director of the Census a few days ago about, he was
concerned, and I assured him that that is an oversight matter that the
Congress does in every agency that we fund, and that if he needed to
reprogram monies from one account to the other, we can do it in a
matter of hours, really, days at most. It just requires the signature
of myself and my counterpart in the Senate.
We want to see a good count. We have not insisted on a banning
sampling. All the money is there. We will reprogram the monies as
necessary during the year. We do it routinely in other agencies, dozens
of requests come to our desk to reprogram funds. That is not a problem,
and I think the director understands that.
I would hope the gentlewoman would not vote against the conference
report on that account because that is a routine practice of the
Congress.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. The Director of the Census, Dr. Prewitt, is
very concerned about this restrictive language. The framework language
was in report language before; now it has been legislated, which is
more restrictive.
Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I talked to
the director a few days ago. I think we resolved that problem. Perhaps
the gentlewoman needs to talk to him now.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
attention to this matter. When the President vetoes this bill, I hope
the gentleman will accept the language that will remove the framework
restrictive language on the census from

[[Page H10381]]

the report, but I appreciate the gentleman's other efforts.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time, and I rise to emphasize the point my
colleague from New York has just made. I do so in gratitude to the
gentleman from Kentucky, whose efforts have been to make sure the
census is fully funded in a way that will allow for timely execution on
the very tight timetables that remain between now and its conclusion
next year. I want to thank him for his concern.
Mr. Speaker, I just simply would like to add to what the gentlewoman
from New York said by quoting from a letter from the Director of the
Census when he says, ``Congressional approval in the form of a
reprogramming would be required for any movement of funds between
decennial program components. This is a dramatic departure from past
practices and takes place at precisely the time when Census 2000
activities peak, when the need for program flexibility is most crucial.
If the need to obtain congressional approval significantly delays the
transfer of funds, Census 2000 operations could be compromised.''
I lived through the 1990 census. We went through a time when the
economy was far more fragile than it is today. The difficulty in
recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of adequately prepared
workers in differential ways across the country was an enormous
problem. At that time it required actual additional enactments of
authorizing legislation to permit the Bureau the flexibility in order
to respond to that. If they do not have that kind of flexibility, which
was initially built into the plans for this census, then I am concerned
that the problem that was significant 10 years ago will be multiplied
many, many times because of the vast differences in unemployment rates
across the United States.
So I would only ask that the gentleman from Kentucky, as we revisit
this language in coming weeks, would consider that and find alternative
ways to develop more controls.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio would stay at the
microphone, I will try to respond.
The frameworks that the gentleman is talking about, where we have
placed specific amounts of monies in each framework, one of those
frameworks is $3.5 billion. The Congress, as the gentleman well knows,
exercises oversight through the Committee on Appropriations of every
agency that we fund, including the Census Bureau. And I think that is
the duty to the taxpayers that we owe to oversee these agencies,
particularly one with the leeway to spend $3.5 billion with no
accounting to the Congress. The reason it is in bill language is
because in the past, with report language, they simply ignored the
Congress. We simply cannot let that happen again.
Now, I will say this to the gentleman. If the Director of the Census
Bureau, during the course of the year, needs to reprogram monies from
one account to the other through the reprogramming process, it only
requires the signature of the chairman of the House subcommittee,
myself, and my counterpart in the Senate. I assured the director and I
assure the gentleman that if that reprogramming request is in order and
is legitimate and needed, he will have the approval within 72 hours,
maximum, of the time he requests it.
There will be no huge delays. There will be no harassment. There will
be no intimidation or anything of that sort. But there will be some
oversight. I think the gentleman, as a Member of this body, would want
the Congress to exercise oversight over every agency that we fund of
the executive branch, because that is our duty under the Constitution.

{time} 1145

I would hope the gentleman would recognize that that is necessary in
this respect.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
appreciate his assurances. I have no reason to doubt his good faith.
The way in which he has brought the initial funding for the census to
this floor reflects that good faith.
I simply hope that, in coming weeks, we will pay close attention and
that they will have the opportunity to go back and forth, as they have,
with the census director so that we can make sure we get this language
right.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I shall stay in touch
with the Census Bureau Director, and we will respond to his legitimate
need.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the bipartisan work of the ranking
member and chairman of this committee. I appreciate their attempt to
work together.
I am, unfortunately, opposing this bill on several accounts. Because
of the brevity of the time, let me just cite the short funding, if you
will, $300 million plus, to the President's $1 billion request for
``Cops on the Beat.''
It is evident that in the last 24 to 48 hours, with the reports
coming out on the decrease in crime, that the ``Cops on the Beat'' had
to be a very vital aspect of that even in my own home community. In the
Montrose area, the 18th Congressional District, they note that they
have been able to have a neighborhood police station because of ``Cops
on the Beat.''
What a tragedy. How long are we going to say to the world, we want to
be a player but we refuse to pay our debt and our responsibility in the
United Nations?
As much as we may critique the United Nations, it is a world forum
for discussions that help to alleviate the various wars and breakouts
that we would have if we had not had the United Nations. What a shame
on us.
Additionally, the hate crimes bill, I am absolutely shocked that we
could not get the hate crimes legislation added. The Senate passed it.
It is the right thing to do. It is a statement on behalf of the
American public that we abhor hateful acts and violent acts against
individuals.
Then I would like to just lastly focus on, as a member of the
authorizing committee for the INS, my concern about the distribution of
funds in the separate agencies, giving $900 million to enforcement but
yet $500 million only to the citizen activities.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and myself and others were in
Chicago just a few weeks ago hearing the crying of so many individuals
who are appalled at the long wait and long lines of getting processed
the legal way. If we want to promote legal immigration, then we need to
do it the legal way.
A thousand border patrol agents what the INS told us, we cannot
recruit. We do not have enough individuals out there. With the thousand
border patrol agents, let me say that all of us had pain in our hearts
with the Resendez-Ramirez situation. I come from Texas. But the INS has
indicated that it is very difficult to recruit at these salary levels.
Although I appreciate the recruitment incentives, the recruitment
agency, the bonus incentives, I do question whether or not we could
have considered raising the GS level of the hiring individuals and
whether or not we should have done it in that way.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
would be happy to hear that we funded every single penny the
administration requested for the services in the INS. Every penny they
wanted, they got.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it may

[[Page H10382]]

be that the administration does not realize the great need out there. I
appreciate the funding of what the administration has required.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
cannot argue with the characterization of the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, but I am out in the field and
I see the pain of the people who are waiting in line.
I would simply say that there are things that we could have done a
little better, Mr. Speaker, on the INS funding. I hope we can fix the
INS as everyone else can.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the conference report
for the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations.
This bill is a testament to the leadership and the dedication of the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and of
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the full Committee on
Appropriations. It is a shining example of the commitment and
cooperative spirit between the majority and the minority, who worked
diligently to bring before us a bill which effectively addresses recent
developments and ensuing concerns by providing the necessary funding
for three important agencies of our U.S. Government.
This bill provides a total of $18.4 billion for the Department of
Justice. It restores key programs. It funds increases to maintain
current operating levels of critical law enforcement agencies and
increases funding for State and local law enforcement by actually $1.4
billion over the President's request. It provides $3.5 billion more
than fiscal year 1999 to the Department of Commerce and to the Census
Department.
This bill before us addresses the threats also posed to our overseas
facilities and to our brave men and women in diplomatic and counselor
corps by including $568 million for the reconstruction and
strengthening of our posts overseas.
These worldwide security improvements and replacements of vulnerable
embassies started in fiscal year 1999 with emergency funding and will
continue thanks to the foresight and leadership of the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the members of that subcommittee.
Lastly, this bill ensures that our concerns worldwide will be met. It
is a just and balanced bill which merits our full support. I am proud
to be voting in favor of the rule and the conference report this
afternoon.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and
the underlying conference report on the Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations bill.
I oppose this bill because it drastically cuts one of our most
important crime prevention programs we have today, the COPS program.
Since its creation in 1994, the COPS program has awarded over $6
billion in grants to law enforcement agencies nationwide. And in May of
this year, the program has funded its 100,000th police officer, a year
and a half ahead of schedule and $2.5 billion below the authorized
funding.
These officers work with the communities to fight crime in our
cities, our suburbs, and even in the vast rural district of my northern
Michigan district.
The COPS program not only adds these officers to the front line to
fight crime, it funds important community prosecution, crime
prevention, and law enforcement technology initiatives. These programs
are crucial to ensuring that our families live in a safe community.
Crime rates have been falling over the last several consecutive
years, and we cannot now rest on our laurels. We need to build on the
success of the COPS program. And it is successful.
Local law enforcement officials from all over the country will tell
us that the COPS program is critically important to their ability to
reduce crime. The COPS program works well, and that is why it is
supported by every major law enforcement organization in the United
States, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of
Cities, and the National Governors' Association.
The President, who recognizes the importance of this community
policing program in reducing crime, has requested $1.3 billion for the
COPS program. Instead, unfortunately, the conference committee does not
meet the President's request in the need of law enforcement, especially
in the COPS in School program.
Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores our communities' urgent call for more
police officers in the streets and in our schools to fight crime and
violence.
I will vote in favor of safe communities and against the majority's
attempt to roll back our successful battle against crime. Vote against
the bill and the rule.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) realizes that the bill contains $725 million for programs which
the President has requested in COPS. The authorized level is only $268
million. We are funding it at $500 million more than the authorization
level.
In fact, the $325 million that we agreed to with the Senate was the
amount that Senator Biden had asked for on the Senate side, and the
Senate approved that, and we agreed to that.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I may, to answer the
question of the gentleman. The President's request was $1.3 billion.
And I agree, they did put in 725. That is about half of it.
The COPS program is more than just police officers. It is COPS in
School, it is the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative, community
policing to combat domestic violence, anti-gang initiative.
Those programs have not been adequately funded to meet the
President's request. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on that
issue. I wish we had more funding for it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of response, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What we did on COPS, if the gentleman would like to hear this, we
agreed to the amount that Senator Biden on the Senate side, a Democrat,
asked for. Plus we added on top of that $250 million in carry-over
funds which were not being spent. On top of that, we also agreed to
$150 million more for the COPS program for the technology portion the
Administration requested under the COPS program. For a total of $725
million.
That is twice what Senator Biden on the Senate side asked for, and it
is almost $500 million more than the authorization by law that exists
in the Congress.
Now, on top of that, we also provided $523 million for the local law
enforcement block grant, which I am sure the gentleman would want his
local police to be able to get at. They do not have to go through a
bureaucracy at the State level or the regional level to get those
dollars, and they do not have to pay a local match. It is 100 percent
money that we will give to their local police.
They can use it for bulletproof vests. They can use it for police
radios. They can use it for salaries if they want, firearms, bullets,
whatever they want. It is not restricted like the COPS program is.
So what I am saying to the gentleman is, there is $725 million in the
COPS program. There is $523 million in the local law enforcement block
grant program. That brings us to $1.3 billion, which is what the
administration requested.
Mr. Speaker, what is their problem? We have provided tons and tons of
money for the COPS and associated programs, not to mention the Byrne
Grant program for local law enforcement funded at $552 million and the
State Truth-in-Sentencing Grant funded at $686 million. There is the
Juvenile Justice programs funded at $28.7 million. There is the School
Violence

[[Page H10383]]

Program funded at $225 million. There is Violence Against Women Act
monies funded at $28.4 million. There is $40 million for drug courts.
There is $40 million for the Weed and Seed program. And I could go on.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, those programs that the gentleman mentioned are good
programs, and they have been funded in the past. Our quarrel here, our
dispute is that we want them all funded to the level requested by the
President, not what Senator Biden said, but what the President
requested.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I understand the
gentleman to say that we are not spending enough money out of the
Social Security Trust Fund?
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, do
not use red herring program. We are talking about the COPS program
here. Let us stick to the COPS program that we are talking about. To
throw in Social Security is disingenuous to their side and to the
senior citizens back home.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman
realize that the President's request was for zero dollars for the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant which funds your local law enforcement
agencies, sheriff's offices, and police departments? The President's
request was zero.
Now, yes, we did include money there, $523 million. But I think we
could count that toward the COPS total, which would get us up to the
total of $1.3 billion, which was the President's request.
I think the bill is absolutely fair, more than fair, even in getting
monies to their local law enforcement agencies. I would argue with
anybody who says we were not generous, overly generous, more than the
Administration's request, in fact, for their local law enforcement
agencies.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
have 15 pages of grants in COPS and equipment that have been given to
the First Congressional District in Michigan. And, therefore, whether
they are the First Congressional District in Michigan or Kentucky or
wherever, under the totality of funding for the COPS program, they
would be satisfying their local law enforcement needs.

{time} 1200

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do also rise in strong opposition to the Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations conference report. I too believe that the
very successful Community Oriented Policing Service program, familiarly
known as COPS, which has been reduced has been a program that has
allowed for the reduction of crime in this country. And I believe that
the President is right to say that this is one of the three main
reasons why he will veto the bill.
A second major problem with this bill is the repeated denial by the
majority of the United Nations debt which makes us an embarrassing
deadbeat country in the international community. The list of nations
that have lost their vote in the United Nations General Assembly for
failure to pay dues is largely a list of small, war-torn nations such
as Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Iraq. It is shameful that the United States
would stiff the United Nations. I certainly hope that we do not lose
our vote.
Another major flaw of this bill is that it fails to respond
adequately to the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and
freezes funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The
horrendous murders of Mr. James Byrd in Jasper, Texas and Mr. Matthew
Shepard in Wyoming are just two instances of crimes for which we should
have zero tolerance. The gutting of this portion of this bill is a
strong indication of the lack of commitment to move against hate crimes
by the majority.
For all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R.
2670.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill and to express my dismay
at the bill that fails to fully fund the COPS program, the community
policing program.
Since Congress authorized the COPS program in 1994, the Justice
Department has kept its promise by disbursing grants to hire 100,000
community police officers ahead of schedule and under budget. The COPS
program has successfully put police officers in over 11,000 police
departments and sheriffs offices. Fifty thousand officers are on the
street and working in the communities to reduce crime today, and our
streets are safer than ever. It is a program that works. It gives
communities the ability to employ local solutions to fighting crime.
Mr. Speaker, I have talked to a lot of sheriffs and police chiefs in
my district. They tell me this is the one program that has done more
than any other program they have received from the Federal Government
to deter crime, to work with the community, to have the community
involved in helping to reduce crime.
Mr. Speaker, American communities are safer than they have ever been
and COPS is one of the reasons why. Last July, 67 of my colleagues
signed a letter with me asking the appropriators for full funding of
this program. But most importantly, my local police support COPS, my
county officials support COPS, my school districts support COPS, my
neighbors support COPS, and so do I.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote against this
bill. It is a bill that the President will not sign. It does not
address the priorities that the American people care about. And it
betrays the words of the Republican leadership last night that they are
interested in finding a sensible compromise to the budget mess in which
we find ourselves.
There was an important statement made by the President last night,
and I believe agreed to by the Republican leadership, and that is that
we are not going to approach this budget on a micro basis but we are
going to look at it on a macro basis. This concession by the leadership
is critical to our ability ultimately to achieve a successful outcome
on the budget in the days ahead. We can no longer engage in a process
of dealing with the appropriations bills one at a time because there
are several other important issues that this Congress wants to address
this year, minimum wage, Medicare buybacks, and tax extenders. We have
to deal with the remaining bills in this context if we want to reach an
agreement on the budget.
The fact that we are voting on the Commerce, Justice, State bill
today shows that Republicans are not keeping this agreement. The
Republicans cannot see the forest for the trees. And the President has
said no more signing of the trees until we see the forest.
Unless we sit down and negotiate the whole picture, we are not going
to pass any of these bills. We should not even be voting on this bill
if we are serious about looking at the entire picture. Clearly, the
Republicans still are not serious about negotiating with the President
3 weeks into fiscal year 2000, and we should not be voting on this bill
if Republicans are serious about not dipping into the Social Security
surplus. The CBO says that Republicans have already spent $13 billion
of the surplus and are on their way to spending $24 billion. This bill
is just going to make things worse because the spending is not paid for
and will come right out of the Social Security surplus.
Apart from the simple futility of even considering this bill, I am
compelled to point out how this is a bad bill that shortchanges our
priorities. First, the bill fails to build on the success of the last
several years in putting additional police on the streets and in our
neighborhoods. We have seen a 7-year consecutive decline in violent
crime. Why would we want to reverse that now? The Republican plan is a
retreat and it is unacceptable.

[[Page H10384]]

Second, it is not surprising the bill fails to live up to our
obligations to the United Nations. The Republican Party used to be the
party of George Bush, willing to make difficult choices to uphold our
role in the world. Now, even though Pat Buchanan says he is leaving the
Republican Party, Buchananism remains. This is a neo-isolationist view
that is hurting our strength and our prestige abroad. They do not care
about stopping nuclear proliferation to developing countries. They are
willing to put politics above doing the right thing as we saw in the
Senate for the test ban vote.
Finally, on hate crimes. We continue to see these horrendous crimes,
but for the second year in a row Republican leaders stand in the way of
taking strong action to combat this violence. It is an outrage that the
hate crimes provision was left out of this bill once again. Republicans
continue to listen to the far right on this issue instead of doing what
is decent and right.
If we keep rolling out these bills that are dead on arrival before
the vote is taken, we will not find any solution to the overall budget
problem anytime soon. If we insist on rolling out phony bills filled
with gimmicks and waist-deep into Social Security, we will be here at
Thanksgiving and maybe even Christmas.
This is another Republican tree. Knock it down. Vote it down. Let us
get back to the real negotiations to settle the budget, not phony votes
which spend time and accomplish nothing and set us further back from
finding the solution to this problem that the American people sent us
here to find.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just say simply that I will be calling for two votes, on the
previous question and on the rule. It is not so much that we are
against the rule, but we are against the bill itself and the conference
committee for a number of reasons that have been mentioned here,
because of the lack of having hate crime legislation, because of not
fulfilling what we think is important in the COPS program and mainly in
my opinion for not including U.N. arrears. I think for us to lose the
chance, to lose our vote in the U.N. would be an absolute embarrassment
and it would be a shame. We are coming very close to the edge right
now. We are riding that precipice. I think it really fits this
tremendous saying that Evanberg said once, ``All it takes for evil to
prevail is for good people to do nothing.'' And evil will prevail in
this world because this is the kind of world that we live in. And if we
do not fund the kinds of programs that are important in the U.N., we
allow evil to prevail.
Mr. Speaker I urge that we vote against this conference report. We
will be calling for a couple of votes, on the previous question and on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point out to my
friend from Ohio that he will have ample opportunity to vote against
the bill when the bill comes up. It is not going to be any more
defeated by calling for two additional votes.
I encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and vote ``yes'' on
the previous question, ``yes'' on the rule and then give them the
opportunity to debate the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 204, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 516]

YEAS--221

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

NAYS--204

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

[[Page H10385]]

Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Camp
Danner
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Mollohan
Rush
Scarborough
Walsh

{time} 1232

Messrs. KLECZKA, HINOJOSA, GEORGE MILLER of California, and Mrs.
LOWEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 204, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 517]

AYES--221

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

NOES--204

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

NOT VOTING--8

Camp
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Mollohan
Rush
Scarborough
Walsh
Watkins

{time} 1241

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 335, I call up
the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2670) making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 335, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 19, 1999, at page H10283.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano)
supports the conference report, and given that case, under clause 8(d)
of rule XXII, I ask for one-third of the time on the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York support the
conference report?
Mr. SERRANO. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8(d) of rule XXII, the
time will be equally divided among the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

General Leave

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670, and that I may include
tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.

{time} 1245

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring this conference report on the
fiscal year 2000 Commerce Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations
bill to the floor. We have brought to a successful conclusion the very
long, arduous work of reconciling the differences between the very
different House-passed and Senate-passed versions of this bill.
This conference report is a sound compromise. It makes a number of
significant improvements, I think, over the House-passed version of the
bill. We moved forward within the guidelines set for the bill by our
leadership, consistent with their plan for meeting the

[[Page H10386]]

budget targets and protecting Social Security.
For law enforcement, the Senate came in a billion dollars below the
House. We were able to restore those funds, and those funds, of course,
will keep intact at their current operating levels, the FBI, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the United States Attorneys, and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
We provide 1,000 new border patrol agents for the INS. We maintain
funding for local law enforcement agencies, local sheriffs, and local
police departments--monies direct to them, not going through their
State agencies but going directly from here to that local agency--the
local law enforcement grants, the juvenile accountability grants, the
truth-in-sentencing State prison grant program directly to the States,
and the SCAAP program to reimburse States for the costs of
incarcerating illegal aliens.
For the COPS program, we provided the Senate level. We went up from
the House level of $268 million, which is the authorized level. We went
up to $325 million, the Senate level that was a result of the amendment
offered by Senator Biden on the other side of the Capitol.
On top of that, though, we added the unused, unobligated balances
that exist in the COPS program of $250 million. We freed that money up,
a quarter of a billion dollars for COPS. On top of that, we gave nearly
every penny the administration requested under the COPS program for
technology programs. That is added in, for a grand total of $725
million for the COPS program.
That is for COPS II, which is not authorized. COPS I runs out this
year. We gave in this bill the $268 million in the House version that
would have funded the authorized level. We went beyond that to a total
of $725 million, even though it is not authorized, in an attempt to
meet the administration's request for more funds.
In Commerce, we fully fund the census. We do not require that there
be a ban on sampling. We will let the courts decide that one.
For the rest of Commerce, the Senate was $850 million above the House
level, much of it in NOAA. We have come up significantly above the
House level, $275 million in NOAA alone above the House, and $60
million for the Pacific Salmon Recovery program to be of great
assistance to the West Coast States of Washington, Oregon, California,
and Alaska.
For the Judiciary, we provide $60 million more than the House. We
solve the judges' cost-of-living adjustment that is required, and we
solve the life insurance problem that had been of such great concern to
the Judiciary.
For the Department of State, we fully fund the request for embassy
security overseas, every penny. In fact, we made the administration
request more money. We have fulfilled that request.
We fully fund and pay for every penny of our current contributions to
the U.N. We are paying our dues annually. We provide the money for the
arrears, subject to authorization.
Overall, Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. I would hope our colleagues
would support it.

[[Page H10387]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.001

[[Page H10388]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.002

[[Page H10389]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.003

[[Page H10390]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.004

[[Page H10391]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.005

[[Page H10392]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.006

[[Page H10393]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.007

[[Page H10394]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.008

[[Page H10395]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.009

[[Page H10396]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.010

[[Page H10397]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20OC99.011

[[Page H10398]]

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we take up the conference report of H.R. 2670, the
bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, the Judiciary and several related agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this year I jumped from not being a member of the
subcommittee at all to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.
Learning this large and challenging bill practically from scratch has
made this an interesting and educational year, but it has been made
much easier by our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers),
who has graciously shared his considerable expertise and made necessary
allowances for the new guy on the block. Working with the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has been a great personal pleasure for me,
and I thank him for his support and understanding.
I must also mention our very professional and able staff, some of
whom we always see on the floor during the debate and others who are
back in our offices. They have worked long and hard, including just
about every night and weekend since conferees were appointed, to bring
this conference report to the floor.
The chairman has explained the conference report so I will just add a
few words. First, while there are still problems and concerns with
certain provisions, the conference report is much better than the bill
that passed the House in August. I think that is an important thing to
note. So I repeat it. There are still concerns with the content of this
bill, but this is a much better bill than the one that passed the House
in August. If what I hear on radio this morning is correct and the
President and the leadership of this House will take care of this
problem this weekend, then this bill, I suspect, will get much better
way before the Yankees win the World Series.
Additional resources were provided to the conferees and the result is
much closer to the President's request in many areas. The conference
agreement provides $1.5 billion over the House-passed level and $3.6
billion over the Senate-passed level. Like the House-passed bill, the
conference report provides the Census Bureau with the resources it
needs to do both the 2000 census and the necessary quality checks on
it. This, Mr. Speaker, is a tremendous accomplishment and probably at
the center of my support for this bill.
Like the House-passed bill, the conference report includes funding
for U.N. arrears, but unfortunately it continues to restrict the State
Department's ability to actually pay the U.N. dues, and I am very
concerned that this will cost us our vote in the General Assembly.
Along with the vote, we may lose any leverage we would hope to exercise
over U.N. management and budget reforms.
The conference agreement, like the Senate-passed bill, provides
resources to begin implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, but one
troubling provision waives the Endangered Species Act for the State of
Alaska. This is an issue on which I have had many visits from Members
and they should know the efforts that have been made on this issue.
The House-passed cut to SBA's salaries and expenses is largely
restored, although partially subject to reprogramming procedures.
If I may depart from my text, if I could get the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, to answer a question, and I am
departing from my text just to ask the chairman, I understand that he
might be willing to entertain reprogramming requests from SBA,
something which is of great interest to me, to the agency obviously,
and to our side of the aisle.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the gentleman to
significantly increase funding for the SBA's operations in this
conference report, and that is due solely to the pleas and arguments
and very persuasive arguments for SBA, of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano). So we are $45 million over what we passed in the House
thanks to the gentleman, plus the SBA has the ability, as he suggested,
to transfer additional funds if they are needed.
So we reserve that possibility as we go along during the year. I am
very happy to continue to work with the gentleman on any further
concerns he may have during the course of the year.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) for his response.
We still have to look, of course, at the losses associated with
Hurricanes Floyd and Irene. I, unfortunately, note that there is a new
hurricane, Jose. He is not on the floor today, but he would be creating
problems that we will have to deal with.
Now, one area where we have improved dramatically and which I am very
proud of is the Legal Services Corporation. It was initially
underfunded at only $141 million, and as in past years the House
amendment raised that to $250 million, and the conferees agreed to set
it at the higher $300 million level, which is equal to the fiscal year
1999 level.
I would have preferred to provide more, such as the President's
request, which was $340 million; but this is an improvement, a
significant one, over the House-passed bill.
The conference agreement continues to underfund the COPS program and
therein lies perhaps the most difficult part of this bill. This is a
program that is a good program. This is a program that needs to be
improved and to grow, and I think it is important that especially in
the area of universal hiring that this bill be improved. Perhaps we
will have that opportunity, as I said, before the Yankees win the World
Series.
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while
slated to receive more than $340 million above the House-passed level,
is still $200 million below the President's request for important
initiatives to protect our ocean resources and to help us better
understand and predict weather and climate changes.
The State Department numbers have been increased over the House-
passed level; and I think that this is, while still below some of the
levels that were presented before, it is still something to note and
something that we can be supportive of.
There are, unfortunately, some troubling issues that still remain and
issues that could have been dealt with and were not, specifically the
issue of hate crimes. We believe that on this bill we could have easily
included the language that dealt with the issue of hate crimes
legislation. We should not waste time trying to figure out the
intricacies of where this language belongs. We should only deal with
the fact that this is one of the most pressing issues in our country
and that we have to address it properly.
I really think we missed our opportunity on this bill and hopefully
this House will somehow deal with this.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there are problems with the bill but I
did rise today and will continue to rise in favor of this conference
report. One of the reasons, as I said before, is my relationship to the
chairman, his support of many of the requests that I made and the hope
that as this process keeps going along we can, in fact, take care of
those items that we did not take care of. So with that in mind, Mr.
Speaker, I will ask for a positive, a yes vote, on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in debate on the rule, this bill is a
lot better than it was when it left the House. Frankly, that is damning
with thin praise but it certainly is.
There are five basic reasons why this bill is going to be vetoed by
the President of the United States. The first is that no matter what
accounting schemes are cited by the committee, the fact is that the new
funding, new dollars for the President's Cops on the Beat program, and
its successor program are only $325 million out of the over $1 billion
the President has requested.
The universal hiring program, which is the program that all
communities will be eligible to try to receive funds from, is funded at
a level of only $92 million as opposed to the $600 million that the
President is asking for.

[[Page H10399]]

{time} 1300

Secondly, this bill resurrects an old argument left over from another
bill on the Treasury, Post Office appropriations, and it renews
legislative attempts to place limitations on the kinds of contraceptive
services that will be available to Federal employees in their own
insurance program. That should not be in this bill.
Thirdly, this bill contains an exemption from the Endangered Species
Act for the Alaska salmon controversy. That should not be in this bill.
Fourth, this bill is part of a huge charade, which is pretending that
the Congress is spending billions of dollars less than it is actually
spending. Under our budget rules, if we call something an emergency, it
then is not counted under budget spending ceilings.
We are told that the majority party does not want to sit down in the
same room with the President and his negotiators and negotiate an
omnibus budget arrangement because they say, when we did it last year,
that resulted in $20 billion of emergency spending being jammed into
last year's omnibus appropriation bill, in fact, $21 billion, as this
bar graph shows. This represents last year's problems which our
Republican friends say they want to avoid.
But the fact is that, without sitting down for that kind of a
meeting, the majority has already produced bills which contain $25
billion in emergency spending, thereby exempted from the budget caps.
This bill contains over $4 billion of those phony emergencies,
because it claims that the census, which, by constitutional edict, we
must conduct every 10 years, this bill claims that the funding for that
is an emergency. The budget act says that something is an emergency if
it was unforeseen. Well, I did not know many people in this place did
not know that the end of the millennium was coming and we would need
another census. That is simply a $4 billion device to hide spending and
to pretend that we are not over the budget caps.
But most seriously of all, this bill is part of a continued onslaught
on the part of the majority party in this House, on the President's
ability to defend our national interest abroad diplomatically.
The Senate last week turned down the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Now this bill provides the money for us to contribute to the United
Nations what we are obligated to contribute, but it does not give the
authorization authority to actually provide that money to the United
Nations. So it is a let-us-pretend appropriation.
What does that mean? It means that, because we cannot actually cut
the check to the United Nations under this proposal, we will lose our
vote in the United Nations. We will thus be joining Burundi, Djibouti,
Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Haiti, Iraq, and Somalia as the
countries in the United Nations who lose our votes because we did not
pay our bills.
What a wonderful performance on the part of this Congress. My
colleagues really ought to be thrilled by putting the United States in
this disgraceful condition.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking member of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky very
much for yielding me this time.
First of all, I just want to give my most sincere thanks to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a tremendous job,
and compliment, I think, the best staff in Washington on this
subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that people try to
politicize this bill because it is so important what this bill
accomplishes as far as I am going to focus mostly on law enforcement.
But when we look at the Commerce, Justice, Justice Department, the
State Department, the Supreme Court, Judiciary, it is an
extraordinarily important and wide-ranging bill. I would hope that we
would not politicize this bill.
I want to particularly point out the funding in Iowa in my district
for the Meth Training Center in Sioux City that has been such a
tremendous success to fight this major problem that we have in the
upper Midwest, funding in this bill for video conferencing so that
local communities can contact directly with the INS to get verification
of identification of people they may suspect of being illegal, funding
for the tri-State drug task force for local law enforcement for all the
overtime hours that they put in in this great war we have on drugs
today.
I want to stand in strong support of the local law enforcement block
grants, the $523 million which is included in this bill. This allows my
communities, my small communities, to get the resources they so
desperately need for equipment, for computers, for radios, for
bulletproof vests. This is the only way for these small communities,
and I come from a town of 153 people. We need this kind of help in the
local law enforcement battle that we are fighting with the drug problem
and with criminals throughout the country. This is essential. I
compliment the committee.
Also, the truth in sentencing block grants for the State are
extremely important.
Again, I want to compliment the chairman, the ranking member, and the
great staff.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dixon), a great member of the committee.
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, but I
certainly have some reservations that I had when I voted ``no'' on the
floor when the bill was originally here.
I cannot quarrel with those that say that this conference report
should not be on the floor, but the fact of the matter is it is on the
floor. Certainly I would like to have seen more money for COPS, but the
truth is that there is a substantial amount of money for COPS. I would
like to have seen the fully funded request for the Justice Department
Civil Rights Division, but that was not to be in this conference.
But important, it does have significant money for juvenile justice
and crime prevention for juveniles. It has $287 million. As both the
chairman and the ranking member have pointed out, it has $585 million
for the Criminal Alien Assistance Program, a very important program to
border States.
It also contains full funding for the census. Yes, it is contained
under a gimmick, but the important thing is that the money is there to
have an accurate and a full count in the census.
I certainly agree that it could be a better bill, but it is here, and
the issue is whether the glass is half full or half empty. We can
certainly make a case on either side. As a member of the committee, I
see that the chairman and the ranking member have been exceptionally
fair, and I prefer to see this glass as half full.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to this
conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Unfortunately, I have to stand here again, as I have before,
embarrassed and ashamed that the United States is the United Nation's
number one deadbeat. If my colleagues want to help restore our good
name and regain our influence in the UN, they will oppose this
conference report and join me in demanding today that we pay immediate
and full payment of our over $1 billion in UN arrears.
This conference report provides only $351 million to pay off our
arrears, only after separate authorization, and only after onerous and
impractical conditions have been met.
We have gone through this before. We voiced our concerns, and the UN
has responded, maintaining a no-growth budget from 1994 to 1998,
creating an Office of the Inspector General, eliminating over 1,000
positions, implementing other cost saving measures.
Withholding our arrears is irresponsible and short-sighted. We have
already begun to feel the effects of our diminishing influence, and
this is just the beginning.

[[Page H10400]]

How can we expect the United Nations to continue to take our interest
into account around the world? How can we expect them to fund the
projects we support and to send peacekeeping troops to areas where we
want to see more stability when we do not contribute? How do we expect
to help continue to reform the United Nations in a meaningful way to
cut down on its bureaucracy and decrease our annual dues if we do not
pay our debt?
This funding is critical to United States foreign policy. It shows
the international community that a commitment made by the United States
means something, and it is a cost effective way for us to leverage U.S.
funding with that of the other members of the United Nations to make a
difference around the world.
Our continued participation in the UN is critical to United States
global leadership, which in turn is the cornerstone of our national
security.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also express my outrage
about a trick played on us in this bill. The majority has violated the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government appropriation by modifying the newly signed fiscal
year 2000 Treasury, Postal law in the Commerce, Justice, State bill.
It goes without saying that the Commerce, Justice bill has no
jurisdiction over the programs in the Treasury, Postal bill. This
conference report passed the House 292 to 126, a broad bipartisan
margin, and was signed by the President on September 29. Not even 3
weeks later, the Republicans undo the bipartisan agreement, one of the
few bipartisan bills that this ridiculous process has produced.
I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. Let us get
serious about the budget process. Let us make the modifications to what
is a good bill and reject this proposal.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), one of the more valued members in our subcommittee. He is
also, incidentally, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the
full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies. I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the
distinguished subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano), the ranking minority member and the outstanding work in
crafting a very important legislative product.
With regard to our UN arrearages, this measure contains full funding
for the payment of our UN arrears over a 3-year period. I fully support
that provision. It is our hope that this will soon be followed by an
authorization measure for the so-called Helms-Biden UN arrears payments
which our Committee on International Relations is working on rapidly.
I also commend the committee for providing substantial funding for
the security of our embassies abroad, something that is sorely needed.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support this conference report
on H.R. 2670, and I urge the President to sign this measure.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge my colleagues to support
this bill. We cover a diverse number of functions such as Federal law
enforcement, trade negotiations, diplomatic functions, and Federal
courts.
A couple of things I would highlight. First of all, we have increased
funding for the United States Trade Representative. I think our Trade
Ambassador Mrs. Barshefsky has done an excellent job and along with the
Commerce Department and Secretary Daley. They have a big challenge
ahead to represent the United States interest at the WTO meeting in
Seattle in about 6 weeks. It is important that we have trade opening
initiatives to get more exports of American products, and they are
working hard at that.
Secondly, embassy safety, there was no money requested in the
original budget from the administration. It is a very important
function because of the proliferation of terrorists. We recognize this
fact and put substantial amounts in this bill to upgrade the safety
programs at our embassies around the world.
Thirdly, the bill continues funding for the manufacturing extension
program in small business development, again programs that are very
important to our economy because probably 70 percent or more of the
jobs in our economy are from small business development. We need to
encourage and enhance the opportunities in small business.

{time} 1315

Fourthly, the JASON program is a very innovative program that is
funded in this bill. It basically is the electronic school bus. This is
a program whereby students can go, as they have, to the rain forest,
they can go to the bottom of Monterey Bay, they can go to the National
Park at Yellowstone, and next year I think they will go into space all
by the electronic bus.
Under the JASON program, for the schools that are wired properly,
they can have two-way conversations between the students and the people
and the locations I have mentioned. Very innovative. It is the future
in education, and I am pleased that we could do that. It is long-
distance learning at its best.
I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations conference report. This is a good and balanced bill that
was put together under tight funding restraints.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill which contains many diverse
functions from federal law enforcement programs, to trade negotiation
and enforcement programs, to diplomatic functions, to the funding of
our federal courts.
I will highlight just three areas that are of importance to the
people of Ohio.
This bill provides funding levels that are necessary to continue the
important work of opening new markets for U.S. goods and of protecting
our domestic industries against unfair foreign trading practices.
The United States Trade Representative's Office received a much-
needed increase of over $1 million to continue the work of that our
trading partners reciprocate and opening their markets in the same
manner as the U.S., which remains the most open market of the world.
The important trade functions that reside in the Commerce Department
to promote our exports abroad and to protect domestic industries are
also provided adequate funding levels.
The bill continues funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program
and the Small Business Development Centers, both programs which are
critical to small businesses as they modernize and prepare to compete
in the global marketplace.
Finally, the bill funds two innovative programs. The first provides
an additional $2 million to the JASON Program which makes available to
over 3 million students the good work that is occurring in the Commerce
Department with regard to oceans and ocean research. The JASON Program
is an exciting interactive education program which I call the
``electronic school bus'' because after a year of studying a science
curriculum, students participate in an expedition via interactive
telecommunications means. This program represents the future of our
education system.
The bill also funds the National Inventors Hall of Fame at $3.6
million to continue the partnership with the U.S. Patent and Trade
Office to highlight to the public the importance of our national patent
system. This system is critical for the U.S. in maintaining its
preeminent position with the world with regard to development of
technology.
This is a fair bill that funds many critical federal functions and I
urge your support for it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on something the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dixon) said in support of the conference report. He did
say he was unhappy and perhaps questioned the way that the census was
being funded, but he emphasized the fact that the important aspect was
that the census was being fully funded. And I have to tell my
colleagues that for the many people that I deal with on the House floor
on a daily basis, that is a very important issue.
I personally have a great deal to look forward to in this census. I
represent the most undercounted district in the Nation. My district was
undercounted by a very large number of people in terms of what we
thought we should have, not to mention what I consider

[[Page H10401]]

the hidden undercount, which is people that have a difficult time just
coming forward and allowing themselves to be counted. So I have the
undercount, and then there is that other problem.
To me, the census is crucial. And to the city and the county that I
represent, the Bronx, New York, a census count is perhaps at the center
of how we look at our future and what we can do to better our
condition. Of particular importance for me is the idea of being able to
spend dollars on a census that will go beyond certain limits imposed in
the past to reach out to people, such as advertising in languages other
than English. This is very important to me, to be able to reach people
and to send a message out that not only is it a constitutional mandate
for us to conduct it, but perhaps it is a constitutional responsibility
for them to participate in it.
So I cannot emphasize enough the importance to me of the fact that
after a very difficult time in the past, we were able to reach
agreement in a proper way on the census issue. So I cannot say enough
as to how important that is and how important that is, in my opinion,
for my community, for my State, and for the future of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), who is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Census of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and it is a pleasure to serve my first year on
this particular subcommittee. I get to wear two hats with respect to
the census, and that is as a member of the subcommittee that funds it,
but also as the chairman of the authorizing committee.
This is a good bill that has lots of really great programs in it,
from the JASON project, to the law enforcement and embassy security
issues. But with respect to the census, there have been a couple of
questions raised.
First of all, is it an emergency. I think we would all have preferred
it not to have been classified as an emergency. But, unfortunately, it
was not included in the original budget agreement in 1997, and this was
the only way to really include it without taking it from somewhere else
and to provide the full $4.5 billion, which is a very large amount,
obviously. Now, this is for this one year.
Next year there will be a cost to the census, but it will not be
anything near what we are spending this time around. And this Congress
and previous Congresses have always fully funded the census. In fact,
we have gone beyond the President's request. We have put in emergency
spending bills, and the money has always been there.
The question has been raised about this issue of frameworks. And the
frameworks idea is that of the $4.5 billion there are classifications.
These are the exact classifications as requested by the Census Bureau.
So it is their numbers. It has nothing to do with a sampling fight or
anything else; it is just their numbers that are put in these
classifications. The question is how to shift it back and forth.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has given us his assurances
that he will act within 72 hours. I will do everything I can to help
support and provide for that type of ability to move around the money.
Most of the money is in one program, which is $3.5 billion alone. Where
we got into this problem is, and we have had it in report language in
the past, but the Census Bureau's management finance people have
ignored that, and we have an oversight responsibility. We do have a
responsibility to make sure this $4.5 billion is spent according to the
law.
So I think this is very reasonable, to say we want to know how money
is being shifted around. That is common sense. This is amazing. When
they sent us the request for the $4.5 billion, we got 10 pages of
information to document that. Ten pages. Normally we get thousands of
pages of documentation to show why we need to spend that money. So I
think we have gone beyond what would be good common sense because of
the fact that we have that.
GAO is also raising questions, so I think it is important we stick
with this. This is not an unreasonable request. It is common in other
departments of the Government, and I am really pleased that the census
is fully funded, and I fully support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
all three sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 9 minutes remaining, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I find this a very strange debate. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano) and I, for instance, agree on about 90 percent
of the issues before this place, and yet today we find ourselves on the
opposite side of this bill, and I think we need to ask why. The reason
is very simple, in my view.
The Republican majority in this House decided that they were going to
spend $7 billion to $10 billion more on the Pentagon budget than the
President and the Pentagon had asked for. The Republican majority has
decided now, in the Labor, Health, and Education budget, to fund a
program level which is $2.2 billion above the President. They did that
at the same time managing not to fund his education and health and job
training priorities. The VA-HUD bill wound up being several billion
dollars above the President. The agriculture bill wound up being about
$8 billion above the President. The military construction bill wound up
being a good amount of money above the President.
So the issue today is not whether we on the Democratic side want to
spend more money. The issue is simply whether we are going to agree to
the labeling of different kinds and categories of spending that the
majority party would like so that we can fit it all into the TV ads of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). That is what the issue is.
Now, the Committee on Appropriations, if left to its own devices,
could come up with compromises on all of these bills by next Tuesday.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) knows that, I know that, and
I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) knows that. We have
always been able to resolve appropriations differences between us. But
the problem is that we are also now being asked to do something very
different. We are being asked to invent a new system of accounting in
order to fit into the TV ads of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
So I would simply say this, our Republican friends cannot seem to
take back even one dime of the spending that they have already voted
for. Example: NIH. I happen to be a strong supporter of NIH. But the
House bill for NIH contained $1.4 billion. The Senate bill contained
$1.7 billion. We are supposed to resolve those differences by coming in
somewhere in the middle. The conference at this point is now at $2
billion for NIH.
I would submit if our Republican friends cannot compromise on money
which they have already spent, if they cannot, for instance, agree to
give back the billion dollars that the Pentagon did not want, that they
put in the military budget anyway for the ship that the Senate majority
leader wanted, if they cannot give back some of that money, then we are
going to have to put some additional money into the remaining bills.
But we will agree to pay for it, just as the administration found the
offsets to pay for the increases that they wanted in the VA-HUD bill.
So the question today is not whether we are talking about the
Democrats' demand to spend more money. And the question today is not
whether or not Democrats are going to be spending Social Security
money. The question is how much of Social Security money has the
Republican majority in this Congress already committed us to spend.
And the question is how do we deal with those issues in an honest
way, rather than conducting what Time magazine referred to as ``A $150
billion shell game'' where they said ``This debate over Social Security
surplus is more about politics than it is money.''
To me, it comes down to a simple question of honesty. And when we get
enough of it, we will get an agreement between both sides; and until we
do, we will not.

[[Page H10402]]

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government of the Committee on
Appropriations, and also a very hard working member of our
subcommittee.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I do rise in strong support of this conference report. I want
to commend both the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano), for the work that they have done. I think they
bent over backwards to provide fairness and equity for the competing
interests that we find in this bill.
Obviously, not everything that I would like is in here. Some things
that are in here I would perhaps prefer not be in here. But it is a
good bill, and I think it is a good balance. And I think it does a good
job of providing funding for the diverse range of programs that we find
in this bill.
Now, I am a representative of a border State, so I care a lot about
border problems and funding for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. This bill provides $3 billion for direct funding of the INS.
That is $460 million more than last year. Very importantly, it provides
full funding so that we can add another 1,000 agents. That is a
commitment that we made as part of the immigration legislation that we
passed a few years ago. It is very important if we are going to get a
handle on the problem of illegal immigration along our border.
We also have funding in there for increased detention of criminal and
illegal aliens, and adequate funding to reduce the naturalization
backlog. These are issues that those of us who live along the border
deal with every single day, and that is why they are so important.
I also want to congratulate the subcommittee for making other parts
of law enforcement a priority; the flexibility that this bill gives to
law enforcement at the local level. It restores the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant; the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block
Grant; the Truth-in-Sentencing State Prison Grants; the Byrne Law
Enforcement Grants. It fully funds the FBI and Violence Against Women
Act. Overall, for local law enforcement, there is $1.4 billion more in
this bill than we have had before.
Much was made on the floor about the census. That issue, too, is
important to us. We have heard about the U.N. arrearages, but the money
is in here to fully fund the U.N. arrearages, subject to an
authorization bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is one that is carefully balanced,
not perfect, but carefully balanced, does what it is supposed to do in
terms of meeting our priorities; and I urge support for this
legislation.

{time} 1330

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very distinguished and very able chairman of
the House Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think we are in the middle of a very
interesting discussion. We all agree that we need better law
enforcement and we think the practice of community policing is a very
effective way to fight crime.
Well, what we are arguing about is the subject of flexibility and the
efficiency, the efficacy of the 100,000 cops promised. That has a nice
ring to it. Those are nice round figures. But the fact is, with less
than a year to go in the existing program, less than half of the
100,000 cops we were promised have been hired and some of them are not
engaged in active police work but only in ancillary administrative
tasks.
We think an appropriate way to do this is not to cut the money but to
provide flexibility, some ability to go elsewhere than simply hiring
cops. A community may have adequate policemen but may lack radio
equipment, squad cars, other law enforcement equipment that helps them
do the job.
We are simply trying to provide adequate funding to hire the cops
where they are needed and when necessary but also to have flexibility
for other programs that help law enforcement.
This is not a policemen's benefit bill. This is law enforcement, safe
streets, safer communities. And that means some flexibility in where
this money can go. That is an intelligent, useful way to handle this
appropriation.
There is new spending for COPS, $325 million in new spending, which
is $57 million dollars more than the amount that the Democratically
controlled Congress authorized for this program when it was put into
law. So there are unused monies. There is $250 million unused from
prior years which is available only for the COPS program.
No, this is intelligent. This will help the big problem of law
enforcement. I urge its support.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Crime.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman for the
product he has brought out here today overall in the crime area. I
think it is a good piece of legislation and it appropriates money in
the right way.
The debate today, in large measure, is over flexibility, that is,
over who gets to make the decisions on where to fight crime. Most of us
on this side of the aisle believe that those who are on the beat, the
cops on the street, the local county police, the local county
commissioners, the city commissioners, are the ones that ought to be
making these decisions. We have for years supported law enforcement
block grant programs that sends the money back to the local communities
to make those decisions on how to best fight crime.
The President, in his request, never has requested in this cycle
funding for this program that has been very effective over the last few
years. And so, I think that putting all of this in context it is
important to see how this legislation proceeds.
There is $1.25 billion, a little over that, that was asked by the
President for his COPS program. There is over $1.25 billion going to
local law enforcement in this bill. It is just that about half of that
is going to this program we have always thought was a great program to
have, and that is a program of law enforcement block grants to let the
cities and the counties and the local police decide exactly how they
are going to spend this money in fighting crime, whether that is for a
new jail facility, or whether that is for more cops, or whether that is
for more technical equipment, or whether that is for more training, or
whatever it might be. It is very important to know that that is the
case.
With regard to the COPS program, the issue there is that there is
actual money in here for the COPS program, $325 million in new spending
in the COPS program in this bill. I think that is really significant in
addition to the $250 million already there that has not been spent in
the past.
And then there is a problem in the COPS program of it not being
distributed in the right way. A lot of it has not gone to the
localities that really need it. Many of the localities are telling us,
and we are going to have an oversight hearing in our Subcommittee on
Crime this next week, that they are not getting these COPS monies and
they are in need of some of it.
Others are saying we can apply for this but then we do not have any
funding that goes on beyond the couple of years and we cannot afford
it.
So the COPS program has its problems this bill balances, and I think
it is a very important approach that the chairman has drafted here.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably a good
conference report, but I really want to take issue with my colleagues
on the block granting to local law enforcement.
I was in local law enforcement, local board of supervisors, when we
had the revenue sharing program. I will tell my colleagues that a lot
of these cities and counties just misuse these funds. They did not put
them into the programs that are really trying to fight crimes.
I think it is unfortunate that the demand out there is in issues like
drug

[[Page H10403]]

courts. And this was level funded for drug courts. That is where we
need these monies. Just to go out and buy more equipment, more fancy
stuff to spruce up, that ought to be the object of local government.
The big salary costs are where we can really help.
I think that the grants program is not the way to end crime in
America. The way to do it is to pour more people, more personnel where
the problem is. I wish the committee would put more into that effort
and certainly more into the drug courts program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleagues here today, if they
feel good about the fact that, under this bill, the United States, the
greatest Nation in the world, will lose the right to cast a vote in the
United Nations, then, by all means, vote for this bill. If they feel
good about denying women who work for the Federal Government access to
a full range of contraceptive services, then, by all means, vote for
this bill. If they feel good about providing an exemption to the
Endangered Species Act for the State of Alaska, then, by all means,
vote for this bill. If they feel good about slashing the President's
Cops on the Beat program, then, by all means, vote for this bill.
I know that the other side will bring in all kinds of whistles and
bells and try to suggest that they have funded the President's program
adequately. The President does not believe that, which is why, among
other reasons, he is going to veto this bill.
And most of all I would say, if they believe the fantasy of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) about Social Security, then, by all
means, vote for this bill. But keep in mind, when they do that, they
will make it more difficult, not easier, for us to resolve the
remaining differences between us and they will simply extend the
fantasy debate which has plagued Washington for the past 3 years on
budgeting.
We have seen all kinds of arguments made for all kinds of
appropriation bills that have come through this House so far, most of
which I have voted against. I would simply say, if they feel good about
voting for a bill which will contribute to the ability of this Congress
to hide almost $40 billion in spending that it is actually making
through gimmicks such as so-called advance appropriations or mislabeled
emergencies and the like, then, by all means, vote for the bill.
I have come quite accustomed to hearing fantasy spoken on the House
floor. I guess one day more will not surprise me. We will hear a lot of
fantasy expressed when I sit down; and, under the rules of the House, I
will not be able to answer because the other side has the right to
close.
Just because they have the right to repeat fallacious arguments one
more time unanswered does not mean those arguments are true. I think a
lot of Members understand that, which is why this bill is going to be
vetoed by the President and that veto will be sustained.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano)
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, as my ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) said, I find myself in a unique and somewhat, if not very much,
uncomfortable situation in that I support this conference report and my
ranking member, who I respect very much, does not.
I suspect when the vote is taken, it will get pretty lonely in this
seat right here, as most Members of my party will probably not support
this conference report. But I would like to take a few minutes to
explain a couple of reasons why I do that.
First of all, I do it honestly and sincerely because I believe that
the negotiations that I was involved in and my staff were involved in
made this bill a much better bill than the bill that left the House. I
do it with the full understanding, as I said before, that there are
still problems with the bill and some are very serious.
But I also do it for another reason and a reason that very few
people, if ever, mention on the House floor when it comes to discussing
a bill; and that is my desire to continue to create a working
atmosphere both for myself, for the subcommittee that I participate in,
and perhaps for this House that goes back to a time when the bitterness
was not here the way it is these days and when people could work
together.
We live in a society where sometimes people from different parts of
this country and from different backgrounds find it very hard to get
along with each other. Perhaps if they were to be a reporter writing
about the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from
the Bronx, New York (Mr. Serrano), previously from Puerto Rico, one
could say there is a fine example of two people that would have a hard
time working together.
It turns out to be just the opposite, that we have worked together to
try to make a better bill is a fact. That we have accomplished some
things is a fact. That we still disagree on some very serious points is
a fact. That I believe that the philosophy between his party and mine
are totally different and that I believe ours is correct and his is
not, that is a fact. But to me the idea of establishing this
relationship and working to make life for people in this country better
on a daily basis is important for me enough to stand here in support of
a conference report today that may not be supported by many on my side.
But I do it, and I repeat it again, with the hope and thought that it
is part of a larger picture.
But I know some will say, oh, what a naive ranking member to think
that if we are nice to people and work with them they will respond.
Well, sometimes it works. Sometimes if we respond properly, people
respond to us.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to me to say this at this moment. I want
to say how much I admire and respect the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) for taking the position that he is taking.

{time} 1345

It is not easy, I know, the position that he is taking. It takes a
lot of courage. It takes a lot of determination, it takes lot of
perseverance and it takes a lot of plain old guts. That is what I like
about the gentleman. I also like the fact that he is so easy to work
with and he is also very effective.
We have mentioned some of the things in this conference report that
the gentleman has been responsible for getting included since the bill
passed the House and it is substantial, matters of great import not
only to him but to the country. I mention briefly the SBA increases
which is due solely to the gentleman's insistence, but there are many
others. And so this political odd couple that he has alluded to, the
gentleman from New York, this gentleman from Kentucky, sometimes we
have difficulty understanding what each other is saying, but that is
beside the point. I wish we had a major league baseball team in
Kentucky so that I could be on an equal footing with the gentleman. He
has been a model to work with. I would only say this: If others on that
side of the aisle would have the good sense and the wisdom that the
gentleman has exhibited during this process, we would have much better
bills across the board and we would not be at standoffs. The gentleman
has been a wonderful example of being the creative minority leader. I
appreciate him very much.
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. Just to cover my tracks, let me
say that if other Members on his side were as courteous as he is, we
could have a better working relationship, also, as parties.
Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying from everything I am
reading in today's papers and hearing on radio, the leaders in this
House will get together with the White House this weekend, and as I
said and I will say it for the third time, before the Yankees win the
World Series, this will be in place.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that they listen to the fact that we tried to
give them

[[Page H10404]]

a better bill than left this House and when they make it better, they
at least turn to the gentleman from Kentucky and say, ``Well, it wasn't
all in vain.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wanted just to say a word of thanks not only to the gentleman from
New York and the members of the subcommittee who have worked so hard on
this but most importantly I think our staffs. They are here in the room
at this time and we would not be here without them. They do the work,
they stay up all night, they read these bills by the thousands of
pages, and we get up and take credit for it. It is really the staff
that did the work. We say thank you to our staff. And, of course, to
our distinguished chairman the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for
his great work in helping us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I
think fighting crime is serious business and this legislation works to
make America safer. I want to commend the two gentlemen, the ranking
member and the chairman, for working together in the manner that the
process is supposed to work, in working together, fashioning a bill and
bringing it down without any politics involved.
Among many other provisions in this bill, there are very strong
commitments to local law enforcement, juvenile crime prevention, the
Drug Enforcement Agency and truth-in-sentencing programs. Important
priorities are funded and the entire package keeps the budget in
balance and does not spend a dime of the Social Security surplus.
This is a good bill. But it does not silence the critics of common
sense who want to increase spending on everything. No matter how much
funding we provide in this bill, there are always screams from the left
that too much is not enough. This sophistry coming from the other side
of the aisle must come to an end. The Democrats go on and on with a
line of reasoning and they do not stop for anything except the truth as
revealed by the facts and the bills that we are actually passing. They
refer to press reports as if press are the gospel, as if you read
something in the press and it is true. I have found the Washington
press have yet to get it right. They use assumptions on spending that
we are not doing and claim that we are spending the Social Security
surplus. They say that they want more spending and they are willing to
pay for it by making the tough choices. Well, that is the old shell
game of tax and spend. When they say tough choices, that means
increased taxes and they want more spending and they will pay for it
with increased taxes.
When the Democrats were in control, they spent every dime of the
Social Security surplus on government programs for over 40 years. When
the Democrats were in control of this place, they never passed a
balanced budget. Yet we are to believe all their Washington press
reports and their specious figures.
This is not a fantasy debate. A balanced budget for 2 years in a row
is not a fantasy. Paying down the debt now for 3 years in a row is not
a fantasy. Locking up the Social Security surplus for 2 years in a row
is not a fantasy. It is very real. The problem is their arguments are
all wrong despite the evidence to the contrary.
They maintain that the Republican budget plan is irresponsible.
Actually the opposite is true. I think it is very responsible to
balance the budget without raiding Social Security and increasing
taxes. The Democrats cannot make such claims, so they attack the budget
with specious arguments. The trend is clear. We pass bills and the
President vetoes them because he wants more spending. But there are
only three ways to maintain a balanced budget and pay for the
President's big spending programs. We are not going to raid Social
Security, we are not going to raise taxes, so he will have to find cuts
in the budget to spend more money. That is what we are doing.
Vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on H.R. 2670,
the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act of
1999 conference report. This bill contains funding for the Department
of Commerce's (DOC) Science and Technology programs.
In May of this year, the Committee on Science passed H.R. 1552, the
Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development
Programs Authorization Act of 1999, and H.R. 1553, the National Weather
Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 1553
subsequently passed the House on May 19th and awaits Senate action.
In H.R. 2670, NOAA is funded at $2.3 billion. Within this amount, the
National Weather Service (NWS) is funded at $604 million, which is a
$43 million increase over the FY 1999 enacted level. This level is $13
million below the authorization in H.R. 1553 of $617.9 million,
however, I believe it will provide adequate resources for the NWS. It
is NOAA's highest duty to protect our citizens' life and property from
severe weather and this amount is sufficient for NWS to finish its
modernization and deploy critical weather observation systems. I also
am pleased that the appropriators kept the Award Weather Interactive
Processing Systems (AWIPS) cost-cap of 1996. This cap will protect
taxpayers from unnecessary cost overruns.
This bill funds the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at
NOAA at a level of $300.2 million which is $18 million over the
President's request. This amount is also $16 million over the total
authorizations in H.R. 1552 and H.R. 1553.
The National Sea Grant College Program is funded at $59.2 million.
This is $7.7 million above the President's request. I am pleased that
this total includes money for zebra mussel research. Sea Grant's cost-
sharing approach with states provides a good bang for the research buck
and is a good way to stretch scarce research dollars.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees decided to
include funding for a new Fisheries Research Vessel. The Commerce
Inspector General and the Government Accounting Office have pointed out
time and time again the need for outsourcing NOAA fleet operations.
While NOAA is making some progress in the oceanographic and
hydrographic outsourcing areas, there is little to no progress in the
fisheries research area. In H.R. 1552, the Marine Research and Related
Environmental Research and Development Programs Authorization Act of
1999, the Committee on Science directed NOAA to transfer resources to
NSF to avoid having the taxpayer foot the bill for a new NOAA vessel. I
urge NOAA to follow the recommendations of the Commerce I.G. and GAO
and contract for vessel time instead of building new ships.
H.R. 2670 also funds the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) at $639 million for FY 2000. This amount is $99
million below the President's request and $8 million below the FY 1999
enacted amount.
First, I want to remind my colleagues that last year we appropriated
$197.5 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) program. We
were recently informed by the Commerce Department that the ATP program
would carryover $69 million of this total. Once carryover from previous
years is considered, ATP spent less than $190 million in FY 1999. This
bill includes $142 million in new appropriations for ATP. With the 1999
carryover, ATP will have $211 million for FY 2000. I see no reason to
increase the money available for ATP when the program could not
efficiently and effectively use its FY 1999 appropriation.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at NIST is funded at a
level of $104.8 million or $5 million over the President's request.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the construction account at NIST is funded at
$108.4 million for FY 2000. After deducting a modest amount to maintain
NIST facilities in Colorado and Maryland, I am optimistic that enough
funds will remain to start construction of the Advanced Measurements
Laboratory (AML). AML is necessary due to the precise measurements
required for establishing standards associated with today's
increasingly complex technologies. It is my hope that the additional
funding that has resulted from this conference will enable NIST to
begin construction of AML in FY 2000.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2670. It includes sufficiency language removing the taking of listed
salmon in Alaska from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A wholesale
waiver from ESA is unacceptable for any state because it undermines the
purpose of the Act and for this reason alone it will probably draw a
Presidential veto.
This bill is also inadequate in its funding of our nation's ocean
research, fisheries and conservation needs. The observers' program
received no increase in funding; marine sanctuaries are funded $10
million below the President's request; fisheries habitat restoration

[[Page H10405]]

was zeroed out--that's $23 million below the President's budget. Now is
not the time to be neglecting the oceans or reducing our commitment to
understanding their processes. Not now, when we have disasters
occurring around the country and we do not understand the causes nor
can we suggest solutions.
In Alaska, Stellar Sea Lions continue to decline despite decreased
interference with the pollack fishery and we don't know why. The Bering
Sea ecosystem has changed in some way resulting in the deaths of 10
percent of the Gray Whale population, but we don't understand what the
changes in the ecosystem are that have led to this.
On Long Island Sound, lobster men and women began reporting dead
lobsters last month. From 8 percent to 13 percent of the lobsters
caught in traps are dead or dying, and a total of as many as a million
lobsters may have died. Although die-offs have occurred in other years,
this appears to be the worst in nearly a decade. Why are the lobster
dying? No one knows.
Runoff from Hurricane Floyd has resulted in a 350 square mile dead
zone off of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina and no one has any idea what
the lasting effects will be. In the Gulf of Mexico, we have a dead zone
the size of the state of New Jersey. Some say this is the result of
nutrient runoff, but no one really knows. We have insufficient funds to
study this disaster.
In the Northeast, the groundfish population declines while the
Canadian seal herd population climbs. Is there a relationship? We don't
know because there are no funds to study the factors decimating the
groundfish population in New England. In my own district the Pacific
Fishery Management Council is about to reduce the catch for my
fishermen by 75 percent because of overfishing. However, there is a
dispute between the fishermen and scientists on whether or not
management decisions are based on data collected from the right fish
populations. No one really knows for sure because fishery management
studies are under funded.
In Florida we have 3 toxic, deadly, and unexplainable red tides. Red
tides have become much more common in the last decade, but we do not
know what causes them.
Mr. Speaker, we do know that the sea drives climate and weather,
regulates and stabilizes the planet's temperature, generates more than
70 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere, absorbs much of the carbon
dioxide that is generated, and otherwise shapes planetary chemistry. We
also know that ocean community is in crisis. Therefore, I must oppose
this bill that places our oceans as such a low priority.
Equally as troubling as the shortfall in funding for our oceans, is
lack of adequate funding for the COPS program. It is unconscionable
that this year's federal budget contains only $325 million for the COPS
program.
COPS has awarded state and local law enforcement agencies with nearly
$6 billion to fund hiring and redeployment of more than 100,000
officers. I have heard repeatedly from local law enforcement officials
on the Central Coast that the need for continued robust federal funding
for the COPS program is critical to help them continue highly
successful crime-fighting initiatives. But providing Central Coast
residents with safe communities requires resources beyond local
capabilities.
Several of my communities have been awarded special COPS grants
including the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative and the Community
Policing to Combating Domestic Violence. These programs have helped
local law enforcement officials implement highly effective community
policing strategies to target specific problems, neighborhoods and
crimes. If all politics is local, certainly all crime is local.
Crime doesn't wear a political button identifying party affiliation.
Republican conferees shouldn't be playing politics with highly
effective anti-crime programs.
Furthermore, conferees shouldn't be playing politics with arrearage
funds. The United States currently owes more than $1 billion in unpaid
dues to the United Nations--giving our country the dubious distinction
of being the single largest debtor nation to the U.N. Tying those funds
to an authorization bill that hasn't been signed into law since 1994 is
a sham.
The United Nations provides educational and economic assistance to
people around the world, working to reduce hunger and malnutrition,
improve education, and provide assistance to refugees. In short, the
role of the U.N. in world affairs is critical and invaluable, and our
unwillingness to contribute our fair share to the U.N. threatens the
health, welfare, and security of our country and others.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and demand that
conferees address these issues that affect our national security,
safety and environmental health.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the conference report on H.R.
2670, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act of
1999. The funding cuts for the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), fund usage restriction on the U.S. Census Bureau, and failure
to include the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, make this bill unacceptable.
COPS has helped make America safe. Crime rates have dropped
dramatically since the program's inception. Texas alone has received
funding totaling more than $300 million, placing almost 5,000
additional law enforcement officers on our streets to protect
neighborhoods, schools and businesses. My district has received more
than $15 million in COPS funding, allowing local police and sheriff's
departments to add 238 officers. I am a strong believer in this
hallmark program which has been a substantial investment in the
security of schools, cities, counties and states across the country.
After more than two years of negotiations, a Supreme Court decision,
and a final budget agreement on the 2000 census, I was disappointed to
hear of the undue ``frameworks'' restriction on census funding.
Congress should not continue to micro-manage an institution that has
historically remained independent in discharging its constitutional
duty. I cannot support this language and believe the Census Bureau's
objections to it are well-funded.
Finally, as a co-sponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I am
disappointed that the conference report does not include this language.
In light of recent incidents involving hate motivated killings across
America, we in Congress need to send a strong signal that federal law
will add a level of protection to currently unprotected classes while
posing a deterrent to those who would use physical violence to further
their prejudiced passions.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and work with the
Administration in fashioning acceptable levels of funding for COPS,
removing restrictive language on the Census, and including language
which would further punish those who commit crimes of hate.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations bill before us today. I wish to express my
appreciation for the efforts of the Ranking Member, Mr. Serrano, and
Chairman Rogers in working with members thus far. I want to stress that
this is not a perfect bill. There is still much work to be done.
However, I will be voting for the bill to express my optimism that
those concerns will be addressed, as many others have been throughout
this process. It is my hope that the final version of this bill will
illustrate the bi-partisan manner that the Chairman and Ranking Member
have stressed all along.
I am particularly pleased that $1.5 million is allocated for
construction of a plant studies research laboratory at the New York
Botanical Garden. The Garden is recognized as the premier institution
in botanical research in the United States. Funding this new facility
ensures that the Garden will enhance its preeminent status and continue
to attract scientists and scholars from around the world. It is my
sincere hope that continued research at the Garden will improve public
health, generate economic growth, and secure our place as the world
leader in plant research.
Mr. Speaker, as I vote in favor of the CJS Appropriations bill today,
I am confident that the continued efforts of the Chairman and the
Ranking Member will result in overwhelming support for this
legislation.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the FY 2000
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Conference Report. I opposed H.R. 2670 because it lacked
sufficient funding for several essential federal programs, and I once
again must oppose the conference report because if fails to address the
vital funding shortfalls identified in the House bill.
More than 200 years ago our founding fathers provided within the
Constitution a framework for a national census to be conducted every
ten years. Unfortunately, language contained in the conference report
places unnecessary restrictions that will ultimately obstruct the
Census Bureau's ability to conduct a complete and accurate census.
While the conference report provides $4.47 billion for the Census
Bureau, it contains language that restricts the Bureau's management of
these funds. This language would require congressional approval in the
form of a reprogramming for any movement of funds between decennial
program components. Counting every man, woman, and child within the
United States requires a tremendous amount of effort, support, and
resources. This represents a dramatic departure from past practices and
takes place at precisely the time when Census 2000 activities peak and
when the need for program flexibility is most crucial to ensure a
successful count.
With respect to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the
conference report provides $3 billion, $26 million below the
Administration's request. INS must receive adequate funding if it is to
be successful in providing enhanced border patrols, reducing its
enormous backlog and maintaining its current

[[Page H10406]]

applications. The $26 million shortfall will hurt the INS in its
efforts to become more effective and efficient.
Another area of insufficient funding can be found within the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) conducted by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). The ATP was established in 1988 to
encourage companies to take greater risks in new and innovative basic
research technologies. Successfully partnering public and private
businesses working together to develop technology in all areas, over
700 organizations in 40 states including 104 joint ventures have a role
in ATP projects. Last year's appropriation levels provided $197.5
million for ATP. This year the Administration requested $238.7 million,
of which $137.6 million would continue to fund existing projects.
However, the conference report provides only $142 million, barely
enough to keep existing programs alive. The ATP is a catalyst for
industries to develop and invest in high-risk technologies. Without
this important program, individual companies will be less inclined to
pursue these technological developments.
Additionally, international programs within the State Department are
abhorrently under-funded. Only $885.2 million is provided for
contributions to international organizations. Not only is this funding
level $78 million below the President's request, but it is also $37
million below last year's appropriation levels. Due to the unforeseen
breakout of conflicts in Kosovo, and more recently in East Timor, the
United States directed large amounts of federal funds toward restoring
and maintaining peace in these regions. In order to continue our
efforts to preserve peace and promote human rights and democratic
principles throughout the world, we must sufficiently support our men
and women who are acting as peacekeepers. Much to my dismay, this
report provides only $200 million for contributions to international
peacekeeping efforts, nearly $35 million below the Administration's
request and $31 million less than FY99.
Adding insult to injury, this report fails to adequately address U.S.
payments to the United Nations (UN). Currently, the United States owes
over $1 billion in back dues to the UN. In recent years, $508 million
has been provided to address this issue, but these funds have not gone
to the UN because the funds are connected to controversial family
planning legislation. According to Article 19 of the UN Charter, if we
fail to pay at least $153 million, we will automatically lose our vote
in the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, the $351 million for UN
arrearage payments provided in this report is contingent upon passage
of possibly contentious legislation. By holding these funds hostage, we
are playing a dangerous game with a highly respected international
organization, and we are losing face, force, and credibility within the
international community.
I also have deep reservations regarding the funding that is contained
in the conference report for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice. The conference report significantly limits the
ability of law enforcement officials to enforce and maintain a safe and
secure environment. I am disappointed by the drastic reduction in
funding for the Community Oriented Policing Initiative (COPS), in which
only $325 million of the $1.275 billion that the President requested
was provided for the program. These funds were to have been used to
extend the COPS Initiative and allow local police departments to hire
up to an additional 50,000 police officers over the next few years.
Such a significant reduction in funding threatens to undermine the
efficacy of the COPS Initiative, which has been a major contributor to
the dramatic drop in the crime rate since 1994 and has resulted in the
hiring of an additional 100,000 police officers nationwide.
Lastly, the conference report fails to include the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act, a measure of which I am a cosponsor. Though included in
the Senate-passed version of the bill, this language is not contained
in the conference report. The Hate Crimes legislation strengthens the
current federal hate crimes statute by making it easier to prosecute
crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. The measure
also expands coverage to include hate crimes based on sexual
orientation, gender and disability. By failing to include this
legislation, I believe Congress is missing an opportunity to strengthen
the current hate crime statute.
Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated and disappointed that many of these
valuable and essential programs were not adequately funded in this
conference report and urge my colleagues to oppose final passage. If
this report passes, I urge the President to veto this legislation so
that we may have another opportunity to correct this seriously flawed
bill.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice,
State and Judiciary Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2000. I
continue to have reservations about this legislation some of which led
me to oppose the initial bill presented to the House. I understand the
strong opposition the bill may encounter, as well as the President's
anticipated veto of the conference report in its current form. However,
the legislation before us is greatly improved and Chairman Rogers,
under very difficult conditions, has made his best efforts to
accommodate the needs of the minority on the subcommittee.
I want to thank Chairman Rogers; our ranking member, Mr. Serrano; and
their capable staffs for their hard work in bringing this conference
report to the floor. This is a bill that is problematic in the best of
circumstances; the current circumstances--where spending constraints,
budget gamesmanship and gimmickry, and political posturing have
hampered the Appropriations Committee's ability to do its job--have
made it much more contentious.
Let me highlight a few important provisions and positive additions to
the legislation contained in this conference report.
I agree that the emergency designation for census funding is
inappropriate. But I am relieved that we have fully funded the 2000
census and hope we can now all concentrate our efforts on obtaining the
most accurate count possible.
The legislation provides $585 million in funding for State criminal
alien assistance--the same level as last year and $85 million above the
budget request. While we need to keep in mind that this level provides
reimbursement for less than half of the costs that incarceration of
criminal illegal aliens imposes on States and localities, the
conference level is substantially above the $100 million approved by
the Senate.
The conference report includes $287 million in funding for juvenile
crime and delinquency prevention programs. These important programs
help deter young people from becoming involved in criminal activity.
The conference report continues an important initiative to fight
methamphetamine which is the fastest growing abused drug in our Nation.
The legislation provides $36 million in grants to States for this
purpose, including $18 million for the California Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement. Unfortunately, labs in my State continue to be major
suppliers of this lethal drug.
The funding level for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) has been
greatly improved in conference, increasing from $250 million in the
House passed bill to $300 million in the legislation before us. This
will enable LSC to continue its support to local legal aid agencies
which provide vital civil legal services for the poor--ensuring access
to legal redress for all Americans.
Funding for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has been increased to $1.66 billion from the inadequate House
passed level of $1.475 billion--which was nearly $300 million below the
budget request. The extreme weather this Nation has experienced from
the El Nino and La Nina events of recent years to this year's
hurricanes underscores the importance of NOAA's work. In California,
the agency's climate observation programs and coastal and marine
stewardship are essential to our environment and economy.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice was underfunded
in the House bill. The division's work is vital to safeguarding the
interests of the American consumer and the fair operation of the market
in our economy. The conference committee provides the division with
$110 million, a needed increase over the $105 million passed by the
House.
Some of my colleagues will raise serious, legitimate concerns about
this conference report--many of which I share. I too am unsatisfied
with several funding levels in this bill, as well as certain
legislative provisions that were added in conference.
The conference report provides only $325 million for the Cops on the
Beat Program, $950 million below the President's request. While this
level is an improvement from the House bill, it is woefully inadequate.
This program has enabled communities all across this Nation, including
Los Angeles, to hire additional police officers which has contributed
to the significant reduction in crime we now enjoy--seven consecutive
years of reductions in crime, and the lowest murder rate since 1967. We
should continue to build on this success by funding this program and
providing more police officers, better policing technology, and hiring
community prosecutors.
I also am disturbed by the funding levels in this conference report
for the enforcement of our civil rights laws--particularly in light of
many recent events.
This conference report reduces the funding passed by the House for
the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to $72 million, $10
million below the President's request. At a time when many of our
communities are experiencing serious crises of confidence in law
enforcement agencies, we should be fully funding an agency that can
help restore that confidence. Recent police shootings in my
congressional district, as well as in the ranking member's district,
have undermined community trust in law enforcement. By providing

[[Page H10407]]

independent investigation into the pattern or practice of
discrimination by law enforcement, the Civil Rights Division helps
restore trust in communities like Los angeles.
The conference report provides no increase for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which protects our civil rights in the
workplace. The agency continues to reduce its backlog of cases, but
needs and deserves Congressional support to enhance those efforts.
While funding levels for the programs of the Small Business
Administration are increased, I continue to be concerned about the
adequacy of the ``salaries and expenses'' account. We need to take care
that the SBA's efforts to expand Small Business opportunities are not
undermined by inadequate staffing levels.
Clearly, I wish that the bill before you addressed these and other
unmet needs. I regret that the House and Senate could not reach out in
a bipartisan fashion and embrace the hate crimes legislation contained
in the Senate bill. I also regret the addition of a provision waiving
the Endangered Species Act with respect to Alaskan salmon; the majority
continues to use appropriations bills to thwart important environmental
protections.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the conference report before you is a
significant improvement over the version the House adopted in August.
Based on those improvements and the importance of many of these
programs to my community, my State, and the Nation, I choose to give it
my support today.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my objections to the
FY 2000 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Conference Report. The
Conference Report before us today is deficient in two key areas: it
lacks the Hate Crimes legislation that was included by the Senate
version and it withholds payment of our financial obligations to the
United Nations unless the State Department Authorization bill is first
signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 is cosponsored by
myself and 184 of my colleagues and has passed the Senate. It is
disappointing that the Conferees receded to the House on this measure,
when it enjoys such broad support and is so sorely needed.
Just a few weeks ago, our Country was shocked when a gunman entered a
Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles shooting at innocent children.
His intent ``sending a message by killing Jews.''
One year ago, in Laramie, Wyoming, a young man named Matthew Shepard
was killed. The reason, because he was gay. Now, with the removal of
the Hate Crimes provision by the Conferees on the anniversary of his
brutal murder, it is a double tragedy for his family.
In Jasper, Texas, a man was murdered and dragged through the streets
because he was African-American.
All of these incidents are Hate Crimes, and they do not just affect
the group that was killed, they affect all Americans.
This is especially troubling to me because of the rash of anti-
immigrant billboards and posters in my district, which falsely blame
immigrants for societies problems. Having spent my entire life in
Queens, I recognize the problems faced daily by minorities and strive
to eliminate any form of discrimination still present in our society.
I believe the ``Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999'' is a
constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to
plague our nation--violence motivated by prejudice. This legislation is
also needed because many States lack comprehensive hate crimes laws.
Now, I know some people believe that hate is not an issue when
prosecuting a crime. They say our laws already punish the criminal act
and that our laws are strong enough.
I answer with the most recent figures from 1997, when 8,049 hate
crimes were reported in the United States. And, according to the FBI,
hate crimes are under reported, so the actual figure is much higher.
And I say to my colleagues, penalties for committing a murder are
increased if the murder happens during the commission of a crime.
Murdering a police officer is considered first degree murder, even if
there was no premeditation. Committing armed robbery carries a higher
punishment than petty larceny.
There are degrees to crime. And committing a crime against someone
because of their race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion,
ethnicity or other group should warrant a different penalty. These
crimes are designed to send a message. We don't like your kind and here
is what we are going to do about it.
So why can't we punish crimes motivated by hate differently than
other crimes?
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not punish free speech as some
have contended. Nowhere does it say, you can't hold a certain political
view or believe in a particular philosophy. What it does say, is that
if you commit a violent act because of those beliefs, you will be
punished.
Hate crimes laws are also constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in Wisconsin v. Mitchell unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute
which gave enhanced sentences to a defendant who intentionally selects
a victim because of the person's race, religion, color, disability,
sexual orientation, or nation of origin. Once again, I would like to
express my disappointment and frustration at the actions of the
Conferees for failing to include this provision.
Mr. Speaker, the second area of deficiency in this legislation is the
provision withholding the U.S. payment of our financial obligations to
the United Nations until the State Department Authorization bill is
signed into law. I am both saddened and troubled by this provision
because in all likelihood, this legislation will not be signed into law
because of the continuing fight over linking the unrelated issue of
family planning to our U.N. arrears payment.
For several years, critical funds earmarked for payment of America's
debt to the U.N. have been linked to the unrelated issue of U.S.
bilateral family planning programs.
These issues deserve to be considered on their own individual merits
and should not be linked. Withholding money from the United Nations
damages the financial viability of this essential institution. In
addition, it jeopardizes our relations with even our closest allies,
who are owed millions in peacekeeping reimbursements that have gone
unpaid due to the financial shortfall at the U.N. created by the more
than $1 billion in U.S. debt. Our credibility has been damaged. We must
stand by our legal responsibility and moral obligation to pay our
outstanding debts to the U.N.
The U.N. plays an important role in the world today. Efforts to
reduce infant mortality, immunize children, eradicate deadly diseases,
protect innocent civilians in war torn nations, and feed starving
families serve to clearly demonstrate that supporting the United
Nations saves lives.

I believe we should do everything we can to prevent and reduce the
number of abortions. That is why I am committed to de-linking the Smith
amendment policy from UN arrears. U.S. law already states that no money
can be spent on abortions; this includes our overseas funding. And,
neither the United Nations nor United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA,
which provides voluntary family planning services to poor countries)
provide abortion services of any kind, nor do they promote abortion as
a method of family planning. UNFPA actually reduces the number of
abortions by teaching women how to practice safe and effective birth
control.
The Smith amendment policy is a prohibition on activities supported
by USAID, not the United Nations. Put another way, the Smith amendment
language relates to US-supported family planning activities in other
countries, not the activities of the United Nations. There is no link
whatsoever between the Smith amendment and the United Nations. This
policy doesn't apply to the United Nations because, as I said, the UN
does not promote or perform abortions. Nonetheless, some Members of the
House have consistently linked it to the UN, creating the US debt to
the UN of more than $1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of our UN arrears is a serious one. The United
States has been quick to criticize the UN for a host of perceived
failures. The slow response to the needs of refugees from Kosova, the
failure to stop Slobodan Milosevic and paramilitaries in East Timor,
and the list goes on. But what many fail to realize, is that for the UN
to succeed in its endeavors, it takes the necessary resources.
By failing to pay our obligations, we limit the UN's ability to
prevent the spread of violence. And in the end, this costs the U.S.
more money. How much would we have saved if we didn't need to fight an
air war in the Balkans? How much would we have saved if the UN had the
resources to prevent the crisis in Bosnia? And how much money would we
save if the UN had the resources to prevent future crises before they
start? By not paying our obligation, we are costing the American
taxpayer more in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, when we fail to pay our financial obligation to the
United Nations, we are also hurting America's credibility. Many have
made this statement, but what does it mean? It means that the US's
ability to effectively influence international treaties and conferences
is being negatively impacted. It means countries want us off the UN
Budget Committee, where many of the US's criticisms about the UN are
debated. And, even worse, it means the US is in danger of losing its
vote in the General Assembly. There will be no vote on this, no one to
sway or cajole, the UN charter is clear, members who do not meet their
financial obligations for two years lose their vote. How can the US
promote its agenda when we can't even vote on the outcome? Who will
listen to us on such vital issues as gaining Israel admittance to the
Western Europe and Other Group at the UN? Who will take our reform
efforts seriously?
How would my colleagues feel if a deadbeat dad said our system of
child support payments needed to be reformed? Well, that is how our

[[Page H10408]]

allies feel about us. We are the deadbeat dad at the UN. We helped
create this organization. We helped instill it with democratic
principles. We ensured our place on the Security Council where the most
important UN decisions are made. And we have shut off our support. This
must stop.
Mr. Speaker, I do not speak for myself alone on this, I speak for a
vast majority of the American people. According to our best polling
data, Americans support the United Nations. In fact, 73 percent of
Americans support paying our UN dues and believe UN membership is
beneficial to the US. This issue is too important to ignore and hope it
will go away. As we debate this issue, UN employees are being killed,
UN resources are dwindling and US credibility is melting away. It must
stop and I am casting my vote against this Conference, like many of my
colleagues, because it fails to live up to our international
commitments.
Mr. Speaker, while the failure to include Hate Crimes legislation and
the provision preventing US payment of our financial obligations are
two key issues for my opposition to this Conference Report, I am also
concerned about two other important provisions. First, the Conference
Report under funds the COPS Initiative. The President had requested
$1.275 billion to extend the COPS program and effectively put 50,000
more police officers on the street. This Conference Report only
includes $325 million of that request.
Second, I am concerned about the provision limiting the ability of
the Census to move funds around from one activity to another when they
have problems during the Census. Such a provision is unprecedented and
places in danger an accurate census count of every American. A number
of my colleagues and I have been working very closely with Census
Bureau Director D. Kenneth Prewitt to make the 2000 Census the most
accurate one in history. To include language preventing an accurate
Census breaks the pact the US Government has with the American people
to ensure they receive the services and representation they are
Constitutionally entitled to through an accurate census.
Mr. Speaker, the President has already indicated his intention to
veto this legislation. I hope that when negotiations take place on this
measure these important issues will be resolved favorably.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 213, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 518]

YEAS--215

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

NAYS--213

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

NOT VOTING--6

Camp
Cox
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Rush
Scarborough

{time} 1418

Messrs. BLUMENAUER, WATT of North Carolina, and PASTOR, and Ms.
WOOLSEY and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JONES of North Carolina and Mr. COBURN changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
Mr. BEREUTER changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________