[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 82 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that I was 
unavoidably detained for rollcall Nos. 277 and 278.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). Pursuant to clause 2(d), rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4603.

                              {time}  1333


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies programs for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental 
appropriations for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, with Mr. Brown of 
California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] had been 
rejected on a recorded vote on which the votes cast by the Delegates 
and the Resident Commissioner were decisive. That result has since been 
affirmed by the House. Accordingly, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] was rejected.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman. I would just like to take this time to 
discuss the time situation that we are in. I know that the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has been asked to rise because of the 
natural gas situation at National Airport. Evidently a large traffic 
jam is developing because of that problem out there, and it is the 
Committee's intention to rise. But before that happens, Mr. Chairman, I 
simply want to make this point:
  Before we adjourn in July for the July 4th recess, we have to finish 
this and all remaining appropriations bills, and that is going to mean 
that we are going to need the utmost cooperation of the membership with 
respect to limiting the time taken to discuss each of the amendments on 
each of the bills before us, and it is also going to mean that we are 
going to have to be here until midnight virtually every night next 
week.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I simply take this time to bring to the attention 
of the House the fact that we are going to need that cooperation or we 
are going to be here substantially later than midnight every night next 
week.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of stressing 
the importance of fully funding for the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System [NICBCS] and to support the passage of this 
legislation. While this bill does not appropriate as much funding for 
the background check system as I would have liked, it is a step in the 
right direction. What we all have to realize is that in our efforts to 
reduce our Nation's enormous budget deficit, the amount of available 
funding sources are becoming more and more scarce. I also recognize the 
extraordinary pressures that members of this subcommittee, and every 
appropriations subcommittee for that matter, are facing when trying to 
craft a specific appropriations act.
  This year's Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act, as reported to 
the House, provides a $6 million appropriation for the FBI to complete 
their NICBCS efforts. More importantly, however, is the expansion of 
the traditional Byrne law enforcement grants that will now allow States 
to use this funding source to upgrade criminal history records in their 
respective States. I view this as a major victory for every State 
across the Nation, since Congress is actually getting around to 
appropriating the funds that are needed to carry out the mandate that 
was incorporated as a part of the Brady bill. Unfunded Federal mandates 
have probably caused more friction between the U.S. Congress and our 
individual States than almost any other specific issue. This 
appropriations act will send a strong message to our State governments 
that Congress is starting to get serious about unfunded Federal 
mandates.
  However, my overriding goal in obtaining full funding for the NICBCS 
is to sunset the 5-day waiting period before the 5-year moratorium on 
the waiting period is reached. I believe this goal is good public 
policy for two distinct reasons. First of all, it will accomplish what 
the Brady bill set out to do--to check the criminal background 
histories of potential gun buyers. Under the current law, before the 
NICBCS is fully operational, the local and State governments are not 
even mandated to check the criminal background records of every gun 
buyer--they are only required to make a good faith effort to run the 
background check within 5 days, and if it is not completed within the 5 
day timeframe the gun sale may still go through. This is very different 
from the provisions of the current law which mandates that once the 
NICBCS is on-line, a criminal background check must take place before 
the sale can be completed. Second, the NICBCS will not infringe on the 
rights of law-abiding gun owners in the same onerous way that the Brady 
bill does.
  Again, I thank the subcommittee and acting Chairman Mollohan for 
their efforts and hard work on this legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies 
appropriations bill and I commend the gentleman from West Virginia and 
the committee for their efforts.
  I am pleased with the substance of the bill as it pertains to 
programs in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. I am pleased that it is relatively free of the kind of 
legislative language that should be left to the proper authorizing 
committees--but that nevertheless appears all too often in 
appropriations bills. I wish I could say that I am pleased that the 
bill is free of earmarks, but I cannot--a point I will return to later.
  With respect to the substance of the bill, I am extremely pleased 
that the committee has produced a bill consistent with the 
administration's requests for substantial increases in technology 
investment programs. Increasingly, economists and other public policy 
analysts have come to recognize that arguments for Government support 
of research and development activities apply not only to basic research 
but also farther down the R&D scale toward commercial development. R&D 
investments like those in the Advanced Technology Program, for example, 
are critical to raising the Nation's productivity and standard of 
living, yet they all too often are singled out for reduction or 
elimination by zealous deficit cutters who overlook their longer term 
payoffs in order to achieve short-term budget savings. I am also 
pleased that the committee was able to increase funding for NOAA 
operations, research, and facilities above the fiscal year 1994 level 
in a tight budget environment.
  Mr. Chairman, The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has 
been investigating the practice of academic earmarking of 
appropriations bills for some time now. We have achieved some successes 
and we have run into some roadblocks in trying to keep this practice 
under control. This bill provides a good illustration of what has been 
happening. First, the good news. Last year we identified almost $80 
million in 63 earmarks in the Commerce, Justice, State conference 
report. This year, many of those earmarks are missing from the House 
report, and I commend Mr. Mollohan for his efforts to keep academic 
earmarking under control. Unfortunately, this is a bill that is prone 
to earmarking by the other body and in conference. Also, some report 
language funds programs that have been authorized in House bills but 
not enacted into law.
  As my colleagues may be aware, I do not count as earmarks those 
projects which have been requested by the President or have been 
authorized and signed into law. It is with some regret that I include 
the National Undersea Research programs five regional centers as an 
earmark. These centers, which are funded at $16 million out of NOAA, 
have been authorized by the House in the past. The Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee has finished their markup of a new authorization 
and that bill is ready for floor consideration. I fully expect the 
House to deal with that bill in the near future. However, we often 
cannot get the other body to act on NOAA authorizations and rarely have 
our authorizations become law. So long as that is the case, I must 
continue to report NURP as an earmark. I hope that my good friend from 
West Virginia recognizes that no blame accrues to him for funding this 
program. The House does the responsible thing. I want to commend my 
colleagues on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee who moved the 
authorization this year and my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee who are funding the program for their actions. However, I 
also ask that my friend from West Virginia point out to his 
counterparts from the other body that we in the House expect them to 
move these authorizations. Until that happens, I will continue to count 
such programs as earmarks and continue to complain about a process 
which effectively denies our authorizing committees and the members of 
those committees a voice in legislation.
  Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and 
I urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Torres) having assumed the chair, Mr. Brown of California, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1994, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________