THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

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]  GPO's PDF

   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]  GPO's PDF

   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.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents