[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7751-H7784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 579, I was not recorded. 
I believe that I registered a ``no'' vote but it was not recorded.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
immediately following that rollcall vote.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may have the Members' attention on the schedule, I 
think we have some information that would be helpful to everyone.
  Mr. Chairman, we think we have time agreements on all the rest of the 
amendments that will take significant time, and we think that will take 
around two hours. We think we should roll all votes on this bill until 
all debate has ended so that there will only be one other series of 
votes at the conclusion of debate.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if this is agreeable, there will not be any 
votes, we estimate, for around two hours.
  Members who have amendments should be prepared to offer them because 
there will not be any intervening votes to kill time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we intend to have on the legislative 
branch appropriations bill a unanimous-consent to appoint conferees 
after the last vote on the bill. We do not anticipate a vote to be 
called for on either side. If that is the case, then there would not be 
a vote, but that is the intent, to ask unanimous consent to appoint 
conferees, and we intend to go into conference tomorrow, tomorrow 
evening. We are assuming no one will call for a vote on that.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, on today, Wednesday, July 26, during 
consideration of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996, I missed rollcall vote No. 577. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Are there further amendments 
to title II?


                   amendment offered by mr. mollohan

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan:
       On page 43, line 2, strike ``: Provided, That'' and all 
     that follows through ``grants'' on line 10.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 

[[Page H7752]]
  this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and is the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] seeking recognition in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to strike language in the 
bill which prohibits funds under the NIST Industrial Services account 
from being used for the Advanced Technology Program.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has been in existence for 4 or 5 years. It 
was initiated under President Reagan's administration. One of the prime 
sponsors was a former distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Ritter, 
who served on the Republican side of the aisle from Pennsylvania. It 
was an expression of his strong interest and, as well, the Reagan 
administration's interest, in this country being strategic about 
approaching technology development and understanding its importance in 
making the United States competitive vis-a-vis our world competition.
  The rule today did not permit me to offer the amendment I would like 
to offer, Mr. Chairman, which was to restore funding to the ATP 
program. In this bill funding is eliminated in 1996 for any new ATP 
grants. There is carryover money allowed in the bill to fund grants 
made in 1994 grants and before. However, Mr. Chairman, the funding is 
not adequate. My amendment today would strike the language in the bill 
which is contained on page 43 which states that none of the funds made 
available under this heading in this or any other act may be used for 
programs of carrying out additional program competitions under the 
Advanced Technology Program. This amendment does not restore any 
funding. It simply eliminates that prohibition.
  Let me say a few words about the ATP program, which I think is 
extremely valuable. Some would say, Mr. Chairman, that the Advanced 
Technology Program is corporate welfare. I would suggest that nothing 
is further from the truth.
  Let me make it clear that ATP is not an entitlement program. It is a 
competitive program. In fact, industry funds more than half of the 
total R&D costs for ATP projects, and most of the awards of this 
program go to small and medium-sized businesses. Many of these 
businesses are in partnerships with universities, with foundations, 
with research organizations, as well as with larger corporate partners. 
That is hardly corporate welfare. Additionally, ATP does not pick 
winners and losers. This program does not even address technology when 
it is at the commercial state. It is pre-competitive.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for our amendment to remove this 
limiting language.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and I will yield myself further time in a few minutes, but I 
wanted the Chairman of the Committee on Science to be able to speak 
because he has other work he has to go to.
  This amendment deals with the Commerce Department's Advanced 
Technology Program, which is not currently authorized. I do not expect 
it will be reauthorized, and it is not funded in this bill. The 
amendment deletes the insurance language in the bill, language which 
insures that recipients of ATP grants in prior years would have some 
continuation funding to either complete their projects or to carry them 
through while they find alternative funding.
  So I urge a no vote on this amendment. We did not fund the program in 
this bill. We allowed unused money, carryover money, from last year to 
be used to pay for projects from 1994 and previous years, but not 1995, 
nor certainly any new ATP grants. We think it is the fair approach to 
shutting down a program that needs to be shut down without undue harm 
to previous recipients.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on Science 
who has a very deep interest in this program.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, let us do away with the myth that somehow this is a 
Reagan program that ought to be supported because it was Ronald Reagan. 
The Reagan administration never requested money for this program.
  Now it is true that the Bush administration did request some money 
for this program, but that was in dialog with the Democrats who were 
looking for some other kinds of concessions, and the Bush people 
ultimately bought in. I have since talked to some of the people who 
were Commerce Secretaries under President Bush who told me that they 
were very reluctant about this program and believe that it is now time 
to do away with it, and that is exactly where we are headed here.
  The Commerce appropriation bill provides no money for the Advanced 
Technology Program. This program was terminated as a part of the 
assumptions of the budget resolution. The ATP program authorization 
expired in fiscal year 1993. The Committee on Science, which I chair, 
has reported the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
authorization, and the ATP program is not included.
  So, the only reason to strike the good-government taxpayer-protection 
provisions regarding ATP in H.R. 2776 is to establish a loophole for 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars of new money on new grants. If 
we spend the last dollars on new grants, nothing will be left for 
completing the ongoing projects that have already gotten some money. 
With this language $318 million is now available for the orderly 
completion of the program. If, in fact, what we do is adopt the 
Mollohan amendment, what we are not going to be able to do is complete 
these programs in an orderly way, and we are going to have a mess out 
there.
  I understand that there are some in the opposition party that do not 
want to reduce the size of government at all. They are against any and 
all program terminations. Let us stand up and do what we said we were 
going to do in November--with this amendment--so that we can have an 
ordinary termination of a program that has outlived its usefulness.
                              {time}  1915

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, in a colloquy. Did I understand the 
gentleman to suggest that there was not support for this program in the 
Bush administration?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, no, what I said was that they did in fact 
come up with money for it, but since that time, I have talked to 
Cabinet Secretaries who served in the Bush administration who indicated 
to me this is a program we can get rid of.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to read 
from Mr. Bromley, President Bush's Science Adviser:

       In the Bush administration we made a start towards more 
     effective use of our technology strengths as, for example, in 
     the successful Advanced Technology Program in the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and I am pleased to 
     see that the program is expanded. There is much that remains 
     to be done, however, and the Clinton administration has 
     emphasized its intent to make technology one of its major 
     thrusts.

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman is not refuting anything I said. I said Commerce 
Secretary.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Secretary of Commerce 
Barbara Franklin, under the Bush administration, says,

       ATP is an excellent example of the kind of practical 
     partnership between industry and government that can lay the 
     foundations today for commercial successes in world markets 
     tomorrow.


[[Page H7753]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that Barbara 
Franklin and I are very good friends. We grew up in the same town. I 
just had an opportunity to talk to her on the telephone the other day, 
and she assured me if we could in fact get rid of the ATP program, we 
would be doing a service to the country.
  So she is one of the people that I feel strongly would say now that 
the direction in which this bill goes is exactly the right direction to 
go.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, Barbara Franklin also says, ``Now 
entering its third year, the Advanced Technology Program has 
demonstrated its ability to attract top-flight proposals from virtually 
every field of technology, and from innovation companies both large and 
small.'' She goes on.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure there are 
plenty of quotes of people at the time they were administering the 
program.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is Barbara Franklin.
  Mr. WALKER. I said I talked to her within the last few days.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are so persuasive, even in the interpretation of 
this language.
  Mr. WALKER. I have talked to former Secretary Franklin within the 
last few days, and she is in favor of getting rid of the ATP program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I am in opposition to this 
amendment. Essentially what this amendment would do would be to strike 
the language in the bill that prohibits the carry-over funds, $187 
million that have not been spent, from being spent for new ATP grants 
or to pay for the continuation of 1995 ATP grants. The bill language 
only allows those carry-over funds to be spent for grants made in 1994 
and previous years.
  We think that money is necessary to be able to close out in a 
reasonable fashion older grants, the mature grants, the ones who have a 
life-span of 3 to 5 years. This money that is carry-over funds could be 
used under the bill language to finish out those older grants, but not 
to make new ones in 1995 or 1996.
  Now, the amendment that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has filed, would allow those carry-over funds to be used to 
finance the continuation of the ATP grant program, to issue new grants 
in 1996, to issue continuation grants for 1995 programs, and so on. It 
is the old business as usual. We think, Mr. Chairman, that the ATP 
program is a corporate welfare program.
  No. 2, it is a Washington-based picker of winners and losers in the 
private sector. We think the private sector is the one to make choices 
of winners and losers, and therefore we urge the defeat of this 
amendment and to keep the prohibition in the bill to stop the ATP 
program in its tracks.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
congratulate him on this proposal, which I support.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a lot of mythology during this 
debate. One of the myths was just offered up, and that is we are 
somehow picking winners and losers. In fact, this is an enlightened 
effort to create a partnership in which a modest amount of capital from 
the Federal side is used to leverage a great deal of capital from the 
private sector into doing the kind of applied technology that the 
marketplace simply is not going to support otherwise.
  Look at the analogy to the National Science Foundation. We know that 
private enterprise in this country is not going to support the kind of 
basic research that does not have immediate payoffs. We realize that 
that is in our enlightened national self-interest to support such 
research through a collective effort, through taxes.
  The same thing applies here. There are some key technologies that are 
not quite market-ready, but we have reasonable grounds to know that 
they are going to pay off big time for us in the long haul. The ATP 
program is to give an increment of public capital to leverage a great 
deal of private capital to bring some of these promising technologies 
to market viability.
  Mr. Chairman, we are up against a very competitive world situation in 
which most of the rest of the industrialized world has things like this 
going on. Let us not tie our hands behind our backs.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in behalf of the amendment offered 
for the ATP program, which is administered through NIST.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise very strongly to support the Advanced Technology 
Program, because I know locally that it is not about big business; it 
is about small technological firms that help give jobs to Americans.
  Over 177 R&D projects have been created since the program's inception 
involving the efforts of some 400 organizations, from government 
laboratories to academic institutions, and I really want to emphasis 
academic institutions. It allows the research that would not be 
supported by the private sector to be supported and to provide the kind 
of technology, that a local firm in my community has been able to 
develop a biocatalytic desulfurization technology which aids petroleum 
companies in conforming to environmental regulations. What better use 
of our tax dollars than to improve the quality of life, to create jobs, 
and, of course, to help an industry that is so much in need of enhanced 
technology to improve its productivity.
  This small company is an excellent example of why we need the ATP 
program, to aid small R&D organizations with Federal moneys in order to 
develop promising technologies that private sector corporations and 
venture capital groups would be hesitant to fund. We cannot leave the 
development of these important new technologies to tax credits or 
regulatory reform and ignore the need for Federal programs like ATP.
  Let us continue, Mr. Chairman, to fund programs like this. Let us 
support ATP. I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment. 
Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why the Republicans want to eliminate the 
Advanced Technology Program, which was established by President Bush. 
Every major industrialized country in the world has private sector, 
government cooperative programs designed to increase their country's 
competitiveness in this global economy. Incredibly, to me at least, 
this bill terminates our own program. That is like unilateral 
disarmament in the midst of a war, and competition in today's global 
economy is clearly the economic equivalent of war.
  Yesterday, my distinguished Committee on Science chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], asserted that tax cuts, 
regulatory relief, and product liability reform are more beneficial 
than ATP. Well, what better gift to governments and businesses around 
the world than to see the United States disarm its private sector-
government partnerships that could support competitiveness?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote for the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H7754]]

  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment. I realize the difficult task facing Chairman Rogers and 
Ranking Member Mollohan in making cuts to the Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Mollohan was prevented from offering an amendment which would 
have ensured funding for commitments made in fiscal year 1995 and prior 
years. A goal which I might add is supported by the Technology 
subcommittee of the Science Committee which reported out a bill with 
bipartisan support authorizing the ATP all the Republicans on our 
subcommittee voting aye. Mr. Mollohan's amendment would give NIST the 
flexibility to try and meet these commitments.
  I understand that the current budget climate is not the time to 
expand the ATP program. However, we should do our best to ensure that 
those commitments made by the Government to the private sector are 
kept. We should not terminate this program mid-stream, after companies 
have begun projects, developed strategic business plans, and invested 
their own money based on a Federal commitment to a program that goes 
back to the Reagan administration.
  However, I believe the Advanced Technology Program should not be 
eliminated outright. At a time when American corporations are scaling 
back R&D spending to focus on short-term profits, and small high-tech 
entrepreneurs are finding it increasingly difficult to find needed 
venture capital, the Advanced Technology Program is a small, but 
important Government program to fill this gap and to help ensure the 
future vitality of our economy.
  We can argue the philosophy of whether or not the Government should 
engage in partnership with industry. But, I think we can all agree that 
we should do our best to ensure that the Government meets existing 
commitments.
  Keep in mind that the private sector puts up their money to fund this 
pre-competitive research.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the Advanced 
Technology Program, but it would be more rightly called the initiative 
from the gentleman from West Virginia for jobs for Americans, because 
that is what it is all about. It focuses on science and technology, but 
it is about whether we want jobs in this country or we want to continue 
to see the good, high-wage jobs going somewhere else.
  We understand that in Austin, TX. You see, in our community, concepts 
like public-private partnership, consortium, teamwork, alliance, the 
idea that the government and the private sector can work together, 
those are not alien concepts. They are what has given us the kind of 
economic development problems that every other county in the country 
would like to have. Unemployment that has stayed consistently below 4 
percent, because we are developing good, high-wage jobs in a public-
private partnership, and technology has been essential to that. It is 
essential today as we recognize the kind of fierce international 
competition we have.
  Other countries, our competitors like Germany and Japan, are spending 
3 percent of their gross national product on research and development. 
We are spending about 2 percent. And with this kind of approach, that 
investment is going to plummet.
   I believe tonight that the opposition to the Mollohan amendment has 
reached a new standard in myopia, with reference to this whole question 
of how we can work together to improve research in this country and 
keep jobs here.
  Moreover, unless we adopt this amendment, this appropriations bill is 
going to break the word of the U.S. Government to those who have 
submitted requests and who are not going to be funded unless the 
Mollohan amendment is adopted.

                              {time}  1930

  Let me just give one example of the kind of company we are talking 
about, a small company called SciComp, Inc., in Austin. It is a small 
startup company that is developing numerical software. As a result of 
the ATP they will be able to continue to do that and provide more good 
jobs in America. If we adopt the Mollohan amendment, that kind of thing 
can be going on all over the country.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I support the Mollohan 
amendment to strike the ban contained in this legislation.
  I regret that my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Science, had to leave for another appointment because I 
wanted to follow up on the discussion that he was conducting about how 
this really was not something that Reagan wanted, even though he signed 
the bill that created this program. It really was not something that 
Bush wanted, even though his science advisor and the chairman of his 
Council of Economic Advisors helped to develop the program to where it 
is at the present time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has been a consistent 
opponent of this program since the 1980's. He did not buy the 
philosophy which the Bush administration bought and which most 
Democrats bought, that the U.S. Government ought to be user friendly 
for business, because that is what this program is intended to do. It 
is intended to make government and business partners in reversing the 
decline in our competitiveness and in improving the efficiency of 
industry, in developing new innovations which will create jobs, as our 
distinguished colleague from Texas just indicated earlier, and which 
will restore this country to the superiority that it has had in 
industrial practices and in international business.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has always felt that 
this is too heavy an intervention, that you just cut their taxes and 
reduce the amount of regulation, and they will automatically achieve 
the kind of efficiencies that they should have. They do not 
automatically achieve it. We have seen that through years of 
experience. This program makes the government a partner with business 
that needs the help, that needs the small amount of capital infusion 
which is shared.
  I urge that Members support the Mollohan amendment and keep this an 
open situation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment.
  The Advanced Technology Program is a common-sense program that funds 
precompetitive research and technology. Federal investment is necessary 
so that industry and universities can eventually reach a point where it 
makes sense to proceed on their own with certain long-range 
technologies.
  This foresight promises to pay tremendous dividends in the form of 
new economic opportunities and next generation technologies that bring 
a higher quality of life into our homes.
  The ATP is based on the basic principle that public policy should be 
determined by a vision that extends further than the next election. It 
is a program based on the knowledge that some important research will 
not get done without public involvement because the research is too 
costly or too long term to fit into next quarter's bottom line.
  I support this amendment because it would give NIST the flexibility 
it needs to complete its funding of existing Advanced Technology 
Program contracts.
  Companies, consortia, and universities around the Nation have 
expended millions of dollars and focused vast resources in keeping to 
their half of the Advanced Technology Program agreement. Now they are 
counting on the Government to do its part.

[[Page H7755]]

  Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. We are not talking about whether or 
not future ATP grants should be made. We are not discussing how much 
money should be spent in future years. The rules does not allow those 
debates.
  Rather, this amendment simply gives NIST the minimum amount of 
flexibility necessary to finish its assigned job--a job by the way, 
that Congress ordered it to perform just last year.
  Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that through this legislation the 
majority is attempting to eliminate the ATP, one of the most effective 
long-term research and technology policies currently employed by the 
Federal Government.
  What is inconceivable, and what this amendment would strike, is 
language that would virtually prohibit NIST from fulfilling its 
existing legal obligations.
  I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and to support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if you want to vote to end corporate welfare, vote 
``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from 
West Virginia's amendment.
  The Advanced Technology Program is administered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, headquartered in my 
congressional district. I have been, and continue to be, a supporter of 
the ATP.
  I believe the ATP is a program with merit in fostering emerging, 
precompetitive technologies. I have been informed by industry of its 
effectiveness in promoting their new technologies.
  Although I strongly support the Appropriations Committee's 
recommendation to utilize $180 million in unobligated funds for the 
continuation of ATP awards, I am supporting the gentleman's amendment 
because it would allow NIST greater flexibility in the spending of its 
unobligated balance of funds. NIST has requested this flexibility and I 
believe it will be useful to administering the program as Congress 
continues to debate the health and future of the ATP.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan 
amendment to restore funding for the Advanced Technology Program.
  I come from a State that has been hardhit by defense downsizing. 
Rebuilding our economy is a slow process, but today, we have a growing 
high-technology sector, which means more jobs and stronger businesses.
  If we cancel the ATP program, that growth will stop dead in its 
tracks. To Connecticut, that means higher unemployment and a weaker 
economy.
  Some people say ATP helps only big corporations. But tell that to the 
small high-technology businesses in my district, who employ 5 or 10 
people, and who depend upon ATP for their very existence. Cut ATP, and 
you cut jobs. Cut ATP, and you kill promising technologies that 
strengthen our economy.
  In Connecticut and in States across the country, ATP creates jobs, 
increases exports, and gives taxpayers a huge return on their 
investment. That's not picking winners and losers--that's making 
winners out of all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to support small business, support technology 
R&D, and support new jobs. Support the ATP program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be postponed.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel: Page 41, insert the 
     following after line 6:


            ENDOWMENT FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     National Endowment for Children's Educational Television Act 
     of 1990, title II of Public Law 101-437, including costs for 
     contracts, grants, and administrative expenses, $2,000,000, 
     to remain available as provided in section 394 (h) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.
       Page 40, line 4 strike ``$135,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$133,000,000''.

  Mr. ENGEL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment, and the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 5 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a minor shift of funds from 
the periodic censuses and programs into the National Endowment for 
Children's Educational Television. This amendment is important not just 
for what it does but for what it represents. Throughout this 
appropriations process, I have witnessed many programs which I support 
lose funding partially or in many cases completely. I feel that I 
cannot stand idly by as another successful program falls victim to the 
budget axe.
  The National Endowment for Children's Educational Programs last year 
was funded at $2.5 million. Under the proposal, it is zeroed out. Mr. 
Chairman, funding in the previous fiscal year for the National 
Endowment for Children's Educational Television was funded at $2.5 
million in this year's proposed appropriation, wiped out, funded at 
zero.
  I am proposing to fund it at $2 million which would represent a 20-
percent cut over the funding last year because I understand that many 
programs are taking cuts because of budgetary constraints. But I do not 
think that the National Endowment for
 children's Educational Television, which has been so successful, ought 
to be zeroed out.

  Next week we are going to begin debate on Labor HHS appropriations, 
and we are going to cut back a lot of funds for education. Right now we 
have before us the Endowment for Children's Educational Television, 
which in my opinion is a very worthwhile program, which will fall 
victim to shortsighted cuts.
  Now, the National Endowment for Children's Educational Television is 
the only Federal setaside dedicated exclusively to the funding of 
educational programming for children. I am the father of three 
children. Many of us have children and grandchildren. We realize how 
important it is to have children's educational television. The 
endowment is a worthwhile investment in our children's education. 
Projects which have been funded by the endowment include Storytime and 
Ghostwriter, reading and literacy programs which are aired daily on 
PBS.
  Public broadcasting programs focus not only on reading, literacy and 
math but on productive social behavior, cultural tolerance, ethics and 
values. Unfortunately, the funding resources, the Endowment for 
Children's Educational Television, from corporate foundation and 
governmental institutions remains low. While most of this money is 
raised through corporations and foundations, Federal funds remain a 
small but crucial portion of their budget. This is a public/private 
partnership that works. Why would we want to kill it?
  Ending it will only hurt the children who rely on educational 
programming.
  Again, as the father of three small children, I appreciate the value 
of this programming, and I am sure most parents do. At a time when we 
are all concerned about the amount of violence our children are seeing 
on television, on commercial television, I find it hard to believe that 
we would forgo the opportunity to provide wholesome programming for the 
youth of the country. By the time a child in the United States reaches 
the age of 18, he or she 

[[Page H7756]]
will have spent nearly 13,000 hours in school. By contrast, that child 
will have spent roughly 15,000 to 20,000 hours watching television.
  The National Endowment for Children's Educational Television does its 
own small part to ensure that these children have the option of quality 
programming. Two million dollars is certainly money
 well spent for this very worthwhile programming. Public polls have 
shown that people across the country do support public broadcasting, 
particularly when we are talking about children's educational 
television. So, my colleagues, I cannot think of anything worse to zero 
out, worse than to cut this very, very worthwhile program.

  I am proposing that we reinstate $2 million which by budgetary 
standards is a very, very small amount of money to aid our children's 
future. Again, under my amendment, the National Endowment for 
Children's Educational Television would still take a 20-percent cut but 
would not be zeroed out.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. It is very, very important. 
Please save public broadcasting and let us send a message that funding 
for children's educational television should not be eliminated.

                              {time}  1945


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in 
its pertinent part ``No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
appropriations bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto for any 
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask 
for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ENGEL. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would 
respectfully disagree. I would say that this has been authorized in 
every single budget, and I see no reason why it should not be 
authorized in this budget. I would respectfully disagree.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order? Based on the information the Chair has, the Chair is willing to 
rule at this point in time.
  Pursuant to Public Law 102-538, section 132, there is no 
authorization for the program beyond fiscal 1994 that has been called 
to the Chair's attention. The point of order has to be sustained at 
this time.
                     amendment offered by mr. engel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel: Page 40, line 24, strike 
     ``$19,000,000'' and insert ``$21,000,000''.
       Page 40, line 4, strike ``$135,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$133,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes, and that 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. ENGEL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would this be 
on all subsequent amendments to the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. To this amendment and to all amendments thereto.
  Mr. ROGERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. To this amendment and all amendments thereto.
  Mr. ENGEL. Five minutes on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Five minutes total. Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] will be recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such item as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since my previous amendment was not allowed to be put 
forward to a vote, this amendment represents, again, a modest shift of 
funds from periodic censuses and programs to the program for public 
broadcasting facilities, planning, and construction. Public 
broadcasting facilities, planning, a construction have been cut 
severely in this budget. Again, if Members support public broadcasting, 
then this is an amendment that ought to be supported.
  By voting for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we will send a message 
that funding for children's educational television should not be 
eliminated. We will increase funding for public broadcasting facilities 
across the country. We will support funding for long distance video 
learning, specialized equipment for services for the hearing impaired, 
and we will send and give a reliable public broadcasting signal for 25 
million Americans.
  There has been a battle in this Congress to end public broadcasting. 
I happen to think that is a very misguided battle. Public broadcasting 
is the best example, as I mentioned before, of a public-private 
partnership that works. For every $1 that public funds are put into 
public broadcasting, they are able to generate $5 and $6 of money from 
corporations and from the private sector. We should be, in my opinion, 
increasing public broadcasting, not cutting it back. If we increase by 
only $2 million, again, a small amount considering the magnitude of 
this budget, for public broadcasting facilities, planning, and 
construction, we will be sending a message that we want and support 
public broadcasting and that public broadcasting ought to continue.
  I say to all my colleagues who have come up to me and have expressed 
strong support on both sides of the aisle for public broadcasting, by 
voting this amendment they are sending a message, sending a message to 
their folks back home, to their constituents, to their colleagues, that 
they support public broadcasting. By putting the money into public 
broadcasting facilities, planning, and construction, we will continue 
to have the finest public radio and television anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the cuts in public broadcasting are 
representative of the poor judgment we have used in this process to cut 
worthwhile programs indiscriminately. What I do is take a small step in 
the right direction. Again, the funding which is provided for these 
facilities through corporate, foundation, and governmental resources 
remains low. Why, again, would we want to break something that works? 
Please support the amendment and save public broadcasting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
gentleman increases funds for the Public Broadcasting Facilities 
Program by $2 million. The funds in this bill for PBFP are already $11 
million above the request. There were Members on my side of the aisle 
who had planned to offer amendments to eliminate the program 
altogether. The gentleman's amendment would target funds toward grants 
for television programs for children, a very worthy goal, but this is 
not a program that belongs in this bill. It is not authorized.
  I suggest the gentleman talk to the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. This amendment cuts funds from the 
Census Bureau, as that agency prepares for the year 2000 census. My 
bill already cuts the Census Bureau by $67 million. Mr. Chairman, I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Engel amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Engel] will be postponed.
  Are there other amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:


[[Page H7757]]


                        TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance and 
     operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to 
     exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate 
     Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve, $25,834,000.


                    Care of the Building and Grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     him by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-13b), 
     $3,313,000, of which $500,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers 
     and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as 
     authorized by law, $14,070,000.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries 
     of the officers and employees of the court, services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the 
     court, as authorized by law, $10,859,000.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including 
     judges of the territorial courts of the United States), 
     justices and judges retired from office or from regular 
     active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other 
     officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise 
     specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the 
     courts, as authorized by law, $2,411,024,000 (including the 
     purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed 
     $14,454,000 shall remain available until expended for space 
     alteration projects; of which not to exceed $11,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for furniture and furnishings 
     related to new space alteration and construction projects; 
     and of which $500,000 is to remain available until expended 
     for acquisition of books, periodicals, and newspapers, and 
     all other legal reference materials, including subscriptions.
       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed 
     $2,318,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For activities of the Federal Judiciary as authorized by 
     law, $41,500,000, to remain available until expended, which 
     shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, 
     as authorized by section 190001(a) of Public Law 103-322.


                           Defender Services

       For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community 
     Defender organizations, the compensation and reimbursement of 
     expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 
     the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons 
     furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the 
     Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)), the compensation 
     (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and 
     reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist 
     the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived 
     representation by counsel, the compensation and reimbursement 
     of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of 
     financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in 
     connection with transfers from the United States to foreign 
     countries with which the United States has a treaty for the 
     execution of penal sentences, and the compensation of 
     attorneys appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for 
     the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 
     U.S.C. 1875(d), $260,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i): Provided, That 
     none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     Death Penalty Resource Centers or Post-Conviction Defender 
     Organizations.


                    Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)); $59,028,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of 
     land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5, 
     United States Code.


                             Court Security

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to the procurement, installation, and maintenance of 
     security equipment and protective services for the United 
     States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including 
     building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages, 
     directed security patrols, and other similar activities as 
     authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702); $109,724,000, to 
     be expended directly or transferred to the United States 
     Marshals Service which shall be responsible for administering 
     elements of the Judicial Security Program consistent with 
     standards or guidelines agreed to by the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the 
     Attorney General.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $47,500,000, 
     of which not to exceed $7,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $18,828,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 1997, 
     to provide education and training to Federal court personnel; 
     and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds

       For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $24,000,000, to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $7,000,000, and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $1,900,000.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     $8,500,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                   General Provisions--The Judiciary

       Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for salaries and expenses of the Special Court 
     established under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 
     1973, Public Law 93-236.
       Sec. 303. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but 
     no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this 
     section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under 
     section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts, 
     courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $10,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in his capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       This title may be cited as ``The Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. portman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Portman: Page 51, line 4, strike 
     ``$2,411,024,000'' and insert ``$2,409,024,000''.
       Page 51, line 6, strike ``$14,454,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,454,000''.
       Page 51, line 8, strike ``$11,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000''.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is modest in 
amount, but it is significant in message. It cuts $2 million for space 
alteration expenses and related furnishing expenses for the U.S. Court 
of Appeals, district courts, and the bankruptcy courts. The purpose of 
this amendment is to send a strong signal to the judiciary that it must 
revise its court design guide. That design guide contains 
specifications for courthouses and office space that drives up the 
costs of relocation and furnishings at taxpayer expense.
  It just does not make sense, for example, to require courts to make 
whatever structural changes have to be 

[[Page H7758]]
made to attain a mandated ceiling height of 16 feet, to use premium 
grade hardwood veneer paneling, premium grade hardwood veneer door 
solid core doors, hardwood door jambs, and the highest quality paint, 
at a time when the legislative branch, the executive branch, and folks 
back home are reducing spending in their operations in an effort to set 
an example and to help balance the budget. The judiciary must be 
subject to the same scrutiny.
  The need for this amendment is particularly acute because in this 
bill before us there is actually an increase in these items over the 
appropriated amount for fiscal 1995. Clearly we are moving in the wrong 
direction here. This just does not make sense in light of our fiscal 
crisis. I understand the need for the courts to appear judicial, but 
these one-size-fits-all standards from this guide add huge costs to the 
alteration of courts and office space, huge costs we simply cannot 
afford.
  More specifically, the amendment before us would simply reduce the 
funding that remains available for space alteration projects from about 
$14 million to about $13 million, and for furnishings from $11 million 
to $10 million. The court design guide, prepared under the direction of 
the Judicial Conference of the United States, is used by architects, 
engineers, contractors, and court administrators when renovating 
existing courthouses and office space. The guide was developed over a 
3-year period and instituted in 1991.
  Again, I understand the need for courtrooms to meet some standards, 
but I do not believe it is necessary for them to follow these kinds of 
strict specifications at taxpayer expense. I can tell the Members from 
firsthand experience that the design guide does increase costs. In my 
district, the U.S. bankruptcy court recently moved from the Federal 
courthouse into private office space at a significant cost to the 
taxpayer. I have been told that there is Federal office space 
available, but because it did not meet the specs in the design guide it 
could not be used. The private office lease that the court did sign 
required significant renovation and complete furnishing of this space 
as dictated by the design guide.
  I had hoped this was an isolated incident, but having looked into it, 
I found it not only occurred in other places in our State of Ohio, but 
also other parts of the country. In fairness, let me make it clear that 
the judiciary has made some progress recently in revising the design 
guide. Over the past few years a conscious effort has been made to try 
to keep costs in mind and make these guidelines more flexible. I 
applaud that effort, but it has not gone far enough.
  The current court design guide continues to require all those things 
that I mentioned, in addition to premium grade hardwood decorative 
moldings, and so on. These result in unnecessary and wasteful Federal
 expenditures. It is time for us in Congress to call for real reform. 
That is what this amendment does. In light of our debt, the judiciary 
must be as cost conscious as everyone else. My amendment is a small but 
responsible cut.

  It is a warning to the judiciary they must review the guidelines 
which are set forth by the design guide and make sensible changes. Many 
of our constituents who are tightening the belt back home are demanding 
it. They are incensed, and they should be.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the 
committee for working with us, and I want to ask my colleagues to join 
the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment my good friend 
and neighbor, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for his outstanding 
work in saving taxpayer dollars in this area. This amendment will send 
a strong message to the Federal courts: We are serious about bringing 
wasteful Federal spending under control. This $2 million start is a 
very good first step.
  What is this $2 million all about? Unfortunately, courts around the 
country have failed to grasp the seriousness of our current budget 
crisis. At a time when every newborn child is already saddled with a 
bill of $187,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt, many 
courts have been moving into high rent buildings that dramatically 
increase the cost to taxpayers. In several areas, including our city of 
Cincinnati, the bankruptcy courts have moved into luxurious downtown 
buildings with rents that range from $900,000 to $1.5 million per year.
  WCPO TV, Channel 9 in Cincinnati, should receive credit for focusing 
attention on this particular abuse of taxpayer dollars regarding the 
Cincinnati Bankruptcy Court. Further investigation has shown that this 
is not an isolated incident. Bankruptcy courts across the country have 
limited their relocation options by requiring such amenities as 16-
foot-high ceilings and cultured marble sinks, and judges' chambers 
equipped with bathrooms, showers, and kitchenettes.
  In other instances, court specifications are so rigid that building 
is limited to just a handful of buildings, sometimes only one building. 
As we all know, when we limit competition, it costs more. We should 
pass the Portman amendment. I strongly support it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, let me say that we accept the amendment. The gentleman 
has brought a very important matter to the attention of the Congress 
for which we are very grateful, and we accept the amendment and think 
it is a good one. We urge its adoption.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of Title IV is as follows:
           TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    Diplomatic and Consular Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956, as amended; representation to certain 
     international organizations in which the United States 
     participates pursuant to treaties, ratified pursuant to the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, or specific Acts of 
     Congress; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343, 40 U.S.C. 
     481(c) and 22 U.S.C. 2674; and for expenses of general 
     administration $1,716,878,000: Provided, That starting in 
     fiscal year 1997, a system shall be in place that allocates 
     to each department and agency the full cost of its presence 
     outside of the United States.
       Of the funds provided under this heading, $24,856,000 shall 
     be available only for the Diplomatic Telecommunications 
     Service for operation of existing base services and not to 
     exceed $17,144,000 shall be available only for the 
     enhancement of the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service 
     (DTS), except that such latter amount shall not be available 
     for obligation until the expiration of the 15-day period 
     beginning on the date on which the Secretary of State and the 
     Director of the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Program 
     Office submit the DTS pilot program report required by 
     section 507 of Public Law 103-317.
       In addition, not to exceed $700,000 in registration fees 
     collected pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act, as amended, may be used in accordance with section 45 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, 22 U.S.C. 
     2717; and in addition not to exceed $1,223,000 shall be 
     derived from fees from other executive agencies for lease or 
     use of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act 
     (Public Law 90-553, as amended by section 120 of Public Law 
     101-246); and in addition not to exceed $15,000 which shall 
     be derived from reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use 
     of Blair House facilities in accordance with section 46 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2718(a)).
       Notwithstanding section 402 of this Act, not to exceed 20 
     percent of the amounts made available in this Act in the 
     appropriation accounts, ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' 
     and ``Salaries and Expenses'' under the heading 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs'' may be transferred 
     between such appropriation accounts: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       For an additional amount for security enhancement, to 
     counter the threat of terrorism, $9,720,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
     
[[Page H7759]]



                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of State and the Foreign Service, provided for 
     by law, including expenses authorized by section 9 of the Act 
     of August 31, 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721), and the 
     State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended, 
     $363,276,000.
       For an additional amount for security enhancements to 
     counter the threat of terrorism, $1,870,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                        Capital Investment Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $16,400,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized in Public Law 103-236: Provided, That section 
     135(e) of Public Law 103-236 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated under this heading.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $27,669,000: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, (1) the 
     Office of the Inspector General of the United States 
     Information Agency is hereby merged with the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of State; (2) the 
     functions exercised and assigned to the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the United States Information Agency 
     before the effective date of this Act (including all related 
     functions) are transferred to the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of State; and (3) the Inspector 
     General of the Department of State shall also serve as the 
     Inspector General of the United States Information Agency.


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized by section 905 
     of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     4085), $4,780,000.
              Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $8,579,000.


            acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), and 
     the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized by 
     title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism 
     Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), $391,760,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c): 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for acquisition of furniture and 
     furnishings and generators for other departments and 
     agencies.


           Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 
     3526(e), $6,000,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     Repatriation Loans Program Account, subject to the same terms 
     and conditions.


                   Repatriation Loans Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $593,000, as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 2671: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $183,000 which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the Salaries and Expenses account under Administration 
     of Foreign Affairs.


              Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act, Public Law 96-8 (93 Stat. 14), $15,165,000.


     Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $125,402,000.

              International Organizations and Conferences


              Contributions to International Organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $870,000,000: Provided, That 
     any payment of arrearages shall be directed toward special 
     activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States 
     and the respective international organization: Provided 
     further, That 20 percent of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph for the assessed contribution of the United States 
     to the United Nations shall be withheld from obligation and 
     expenditure until a certification is made under section 
     401(b) of Public Law 103-236 for fiscal year 1996: Provided 
     further, That certification under section 401(b) of Public 
     Law 103-236 for fiscal year 1996 may only be made if the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives are notified of the 
     steps taken, and anticipated, to meet the requirements of 
     section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236 at least 15 days in 
     advance of the proposed certification: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for a United States contribution to an 
     international organization for the United States share of 
     interest costs made known to the United States Government by 
     such organization for loans incurred on or after October 1, 
     1984, through external borrowings.


        Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $425,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used, and shall not be 
     available, for obligation or expenditure for any new or 
     expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission unless, at least 
     fifteen days in advance of voting for the new or expanded 
     mission in the United Nations Security Council (or in an 
     emergency, as far in advance as is practicable), (1) the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and other appropriate Committees of the 
     Congress are notified of the estimated cost and length of the 
     mission, the vital national interest that will be served, and 
     the planned exit strategy; and (2) a reprogramming of funds 
     pursuant to section 605 of this Act is submitted, and the 
     procedures therein followed, setting forth the source of 
     funds that will be used to pay for the cost of the new or 
     expanded mission: Provided further, That funds shall be 
     available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a certification 
     by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees of 
     the Congress that American manufacturers and suppliers are 
     being given opportunities to provide equipment, services and 
     material for United Nations peacekeeping activities equal to 
     those being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers.


              International Conferences and Contingencies

       For necessary expenses authorized by section 5 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for these purposes, contributions 
     for the United States share of general expenses of 
     international organizations and conferences and 
     representation to such organizations and conferences as 
     provided for by 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 2672 and personal services 
     without regard to civil service and classification laws as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5102, $3,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which 
     not to exceed $200,000 may be expended for representation as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 4085.

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:


 International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $12,358,000.


                              Construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $6,644,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).


              American Sections, International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by 
     treaties between the United States and Canada or Great 
     Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182; $5,800,000, 
     of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for 
     representation expenses incurred by the International Joint 
     Commission.


                  International Fisheries Commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $14,669,000: Provided, That the United States' share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions, 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.
                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by 
     section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $10,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).
                General Provisions--Department of State

       Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and 
     differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of 5 U.S.C.; for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and 

[[Page H7760]]
     hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the United States Information Agency 
     in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, 
     but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 403. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act or any other Act may be expended for 
     compensation of the United States Commissioner of the 
     International Boundary Commission, United States and Canada, 
     only for actual hours worked by such Commissioner.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  Arms Control and Disarmament Agency


                Arms Control and Disarmament Activities

       For necessary expenses not otherwise provided, for arms 
     control, nonproliferation, and disarmament activities, 
     $40,000,000, of which not to exceed $50,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses as authorized 
     by the Act of September 26, 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2551 
     et seq.).

                    United States Information Agency


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the United States Information Agency, as authorized by 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as 
     amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
     1977 (91 Stat. 1636), to carry out international 
     communication, educational and cultural activities; and to 
     carry out related activities authorized by law, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 1471, and entertainment, including official 
     receptions, within the United States, not to exceed $25,000 
     as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3); $445,645,000: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $1,400,000 may be used for representation 
     abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1452 and 4085: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $7,615,000 to remain available 
     until expended, may be credited to this appropriation from 
     fees or other payments received from or in connection with 
     English teaching, library, motion pictures, and publication 
     programs as authorized by section 810 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $1,700,000 to remain 
     available until expended may be used to carry out projects 
     involving security construction and related improvements for 
     agency facilities not physically located together with 
     Department of State facilities abroad.
                            Technology Fund

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency to provide for the procurement of 
     information technology improvements, as authorized by the 
     United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 
     1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (22 
     U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 
     (91 Stat. 1636), $5,050,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


               Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

       For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs, 
     as authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 (91 Stat. 1636), 
     $192,090,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2455.


           Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund

       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
     05), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September 
     30, 1996, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any 
     contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the 
     rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are 
     not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform 
     Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for 
     Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on 
     compensation for personal services.


                    Israeli Arab Scholarship Program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 1996, to remain 
     available until expended.


              American Studies Collections Endowment Fund

       For necessary expenses of American Studies Collections as 
     authorized by section 235 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, all interest 
     and earnings accruing to the American Studies Collections 
     Endowment Fund on or before September 30, 1996, to remain 
     available until expended.
                 International Broadcasting Operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency, as authorized by the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 
     the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, as amended, the 
     Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act, the United States 
     International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, to carry out international 
     communication activities; $341,000,000, of which $5,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended, not to exceed $16,000 
     may be used for official receptions within the United States 
     as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3), not to exceed $35,000 may 
     be used for representation abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 
     1452 and 4085, and not to exceed $39,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses of Radio Free 
     Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition, not to exceed $250,000 
     from fees as authorized by section 810 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 
     to remain available until expended for carrying out 
     authorized purposes: Provided, That funds provided for 
     broadcasting to Cuba may be used for the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio and 
     television transmission and reception, and purchase and 
     installation of necessary equipment for radio and television 
     transmission and reception.


                           Radio Construction

       For an additional amount for the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio 
     transmission and reception and purchase and installation of 
     necessary equipment for radio and television transmission and 
     reception as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1471, $70,164,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 
     1477b(a).


                    National Endowment for Democracy

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, $28,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page 72, line 
     20, strike ``$28,000,000'' and insert ``$30,000,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores a 
relatively small amount of funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy. I happen to serve as the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee. We have had extensive hearings on this. It is one of the 
most effective uses of our foreign aid dollars. I think we can all be 
very proud that Harry Wu and his Laogai Institute have been funded by 
NED, and it is just one example of many where we have provided scarce 
resources for an effective pro-democracy building effort around the 
world.
  For this program we had authorized, let me remind Members, $34 
million in the House-passed bill. The appropriators came in at $28 
million. In working with the chairman, we have been able to find a 
compromise at $30 million. I think that $2 million additional is a very 
modest amount that will be used very effectively.
  I also wish to commend Mr. Richardson for his amendment--for which I 
understand there may not be time this evening--which would have added 
$500,000 to NED for pro-freedom and pro-democracy programs in Burma. 
These programs are urgently needed, and NED is just the institution to 
support them. I urge NED to provide substantial funding for these 
projects, on at least the scale suggested by the Richardson amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this 
issue, and has convinced certainly this Member that this is a 
worthwhile amendment, so we accept the amendment from our side and urge 
its adoption.

[[Page H7761]]

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kind words.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, after the military seized power of 
Burma in 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi became leader of the opposition pro-
democracy movement.
  She was placed under house arrest by Burma's military junta the State 
Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC on July 20, 1989, on 
allegations of inciting unrest. Her party, the National League for 
Democracy, won a landslide victory in 1990 general elections, but the 
military refused to honor the results.
  Referred to reverently as ``the Lady,'' she remained steadfastly 
committed to democracy even in detention. In 1991, she won the Nobel 
Peace Prize.
  On July 10 the government, which had indicated it did not plan to 
release Suu Kyi when she completed her sentence on July 19, decided to 
lift the restriction order without conditions.
  The release should mark the renewal of a genuine process of political 
reconciliation leading to the installation of a democratically elected 
government and restoring peace and stability in Burma.
  I intended to offer an amendment to capitalize on this development by 
directing the NED to cultivate the struggling democratic movement in 
Burma.
  Instead, I have gotten the assurance of Chairman Rogers that NED will 
recognize the need to support the growing democratic movement in Burma 
and spend the sufficient amount of funds necessary to carry out this 
function.
  Over 5 years of political suppression by the SLORC have left the 
infrastructure of democratic political activity extremely weak. It is 
important that approximately $500,000 of NED funding go directly to 
operations designed to nurture Burma's National League for Democracy at 
this critical time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
                       TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Maritime Administration


                    Operating-Differential Subsidies

                  (liquidation of contract authority)

       For the payment of obligations incurred for operating-
     differential subsidies as authorized by the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936, as amended, $162,610,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        Operations and Training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $64,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     use proceeds derived from the sale or disposal of National 
     Defense Reserve Fleet vessels that are currently collected 
     and retained by the Maritime Administration, to be used for 
     facility and ship maintenance, modernization and repair, 
     conversion, acquisition of equipment, and fuel costs 
     necessary to maintain training at the United States Merchant 
     Marine Academy and State maritime academies: Provided 
     further, That reimbursements may be made to this 
     appropriation from receipts to the ``Federal Ship Financing 
     Fund'' for administrative expenses in support of that program 
     in addition to any amount heretofore appropriated.


          Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act of 1936, $48,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $1,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $4,000,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.
           administrative provisions--maritime administration

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities 
     and services and make necessary repairs in connection with 
     any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government 
     property under control of the Maritime Administration, and 
     payments received therefor shall be credited to the 
     appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That 
     rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy 
     for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs 
     shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal 
     year from the construction fund established by the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriation Act, and all receipts which otherwise 
     would be deposited to the credit of said fund shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $206,000, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-83, section 1303.

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $8,500,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ 
     consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in 
     excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the 
     Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each 
     Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse 
     Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the 
     exception of the Chairperson who is permitted 125 billable 
     days.

                    Commission on Immigration Reform


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Immigration 
     Reform pursuant to section 141(f) of the Immigration Act of 
     1990, $2,377,000, to remain available until expended.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,090,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b); nonmonetary awards to private citizens; not 
     to exceed $26,500,000, for payments to State and local 
     enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant 
     to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
     sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1991; $233,000,000: Provided, That the 
     Commission is authorized to make available for official 
     reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 
     from available funds.

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; not 
     to exceed $600,000 for land and structures; not to exceed 
     $500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to 
     buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed sixteen) and 
     hire of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $185,232,000, of which not to 
     exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1997, for research and policy studies: Provided, That 
     $116,400,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and 
     collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1996 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
     estimated at $68,832,000: Provided further, That any 
     offsetting collections received in excess of $116,400,000 in 
     fiscal year 1996 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1996.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act of 
     1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1111), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; 
     $15,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.
     
[[Page H7762]]


                        Federal Trade Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; 
     $82,928,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $48,262,000 of offsetting 
     collections derived from fees collected for premerger 
     notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 
     Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $34,666,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any fees received in excess of 
     $48,262,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall remain available until 
     expended, but shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 1996: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available to the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
     available for obligation for expenses authorized by section 
     151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement 
     Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242, 105 Stat. 2282-2285).

               Japan-United States Friendship Commission


               Japan-United States Friendship Trust Fund

       For expenses of the Japan-United States Friendship 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 94-118, as amended, 
     from the interest earned on the Japan-United States 
     Friendship Trust Fund, $1,247,000; and an amount of Japanese 
     currency not to exceed the equivalent of $1,420,000 based on 
     exchange rates at the time of payment of such amounts as 
     authorized by Public Law 94-118.

                       Legal Services Corporation


               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     as amended, $278,000,000 of which $265,000,000 is for basic 
     field programs; $8,000,000 is for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, of which $5,750,000 shall be used to contract with 
     independent auditing agencies for annual financial and 
     program audits of all grantees in accordance with Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-133; and $5,000,000 is for 
     management and administration.


         Administrative Provisions--Legal Services Corporation

       Sec. 501. Funds appropriated under this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be distributed as follows:
       (1) The Corporation shall define geographic areas and funds 
     available for each geographic area shall be on a per capita 
     basis pursuant to the number of poor people determined by the 
     Bureau of the Census to be within that geographic area: 
     Provided, That funds for a geographic area may be distributed 
     by the Corporation to one or more persons or entities 
     eligible for funding under section 1006(a)(1)(A) of the Legal 
     Services Corporation Act, subject to sections 502 and 504 of 
     this Act.
       (2) The amount of the grants from the Corporation and of 
     the contracts entered into by the Corporation in accordance 
     with paragraph (1) shall be an equal figure per poor person 
     for all geographic areas, based on the most recent decennial 
     census of population conducted pursuant to section 141 of 
     title 13, United States Code.
       Sec. 502. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation shall be used by the Corporation 
     in making grants or entering into contracts for the provision 
     of legal assistance unless the Corporation ensures that the 
     person or entity receiving funding to provide such legal 
     assistance is--
       (1) a private attorney or attorneys admitted to practice in 
     one of the States or the District of Columbia;
       (2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered under the 
     laws of one of the States or the District of Columbia, a 
     purpose of which is furnishing legal assistance to eligible 
     clients, the majority of the board of directors or other 
     governing body of which is comprised of attorneys who are 
     admitted to practice in one of the States or the District of 
     Columbia and who are appointed to terms of office on such 
     board or body by the governing bodies of State, county, or 
     municipal bar associations the membership of which represents 
     a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the locality in 
     which the organization is to provide legal assistance;
       (3) a State or local government (without regard to section 
     1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Legal Services Corporation Act); or
       (4) a substate regional planning or coordination agency 
     which is composed of a substate area whose governing board is 
     controlled by locally elected officials.
       Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation for grants or contracts to basic 
     field programs may be obligated unless such grants or 
     contracts are awarded on a competitive basis: Provided, That 
     not later than sixty days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Legal Services Corporation shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement a competitive selection process: Provided further, 
     That such regulations shall include, but not be limited to, 
     the following selection criteria:
       (1) The demonstration of a full understanding of the basic 
     legal needs of the eligible clients to be served and a 
     demonstration of the capability of serving those needs.
       (2) The quality, feasibility, and cost effectiveness of 
     plans submitted by the applicant for the delivery of legal 
     assistance to the eligible clients to be served.
       (3) The experiences of the Corporation with the applicant, 
     if the applicant has previously received financial assistance 
     from the Corporation, including the applicant's record of 
     past compliance with Corporation policies, practices, and 
     restrictions:

     Provided further, That, such regulations shall ensure that 
     timely notice for the submission of applications for awards 
     is published in periodicals of local and State bar 
     associations and in at least one daily newspaper of general 
     circulation in the area to be served by the person or entity 
     receiving the award: Provided further, No person or entity 
     that was previously awarded a grant or contract by the Legal 
     Services Corporation for the provision of legal assistance 
     may be given any preference in the competitive selection 
     process: Provided further, That for the purposes of the 
     funding provided in this Act, rights under sections 
     1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j) shall not apply.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation may be used to provide financial 
     assistance to any person or entity--
       (1) that makes available any funds, personnel, or equipment 
     for use in advocating or opposing any plan or proposal, or 
     represents any party or participates in any other way in 
     litigation, that is intended to or has the effect of 
     altering, revising, or reapportioning a legislative, 
     judicial, or elective district at any level of government, 
     including influencing the timing or manner of the taking of a 
     census;
       (2) that attempts to influence the issuance, amendment, or 
     revocation of any executive order, regulation, or similar 
     promulgation by any Federal, State, or local agency;
       (3) that attempts to influence any decision by a Federal, 
     State, or local agency, except when legal assistance is 
     provided by an employee of a grantee to an eligible client on 
     a particular application, claim, or case, which directly 
     involves the client's legal rights or responsibilities, and 
     which does not involve the issuance, amendment, or revocation 
     of any agency promulgation described in paragraph (2);
       (4) that attempts to influence the passage or defeat of any 
     legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum, 
     initiative, or any similar procedure of the Congress of the 
     United States, or by any State or local legislative body;
       (5) that attempts to influence the conduct of oversight 
     proceedings of the Corporation or any person or entity 
     receiving financial assistance provided by the Corporation;
       (6) that pays for any personal service, advertisement, 
     telegram, telephone communication, letter, printed or written 
     matter, administrative expenses, or related expenses, 
     associated with an activity prohibited in paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), or (5);
       (7) that brings a class action suit against the Federal 
     Government or any State or local government;
       (8) that files a complaint or otherwise pursues litigation 
     against a defendant, or engages in precomplaint settlement 
     negotiations with a prospective defendant, unless--
       (A) all plaintiffs have been specifically identified, by 
     name, in any complaint filed for purposes of litigation; and
       (B) a statement or statements of facts written in English 
     and, if necessary, in a language which the plaintiffs 
     understand, which enumerate the particular facts known to the 
     plaintiffs on which the complaint is based, have been signed 
     by the plaintiffs (including named plaintiffs in a class 
     action), are kept on file by the person or entity provided 
     financial assistance by the Corporation, and are made 
     available to any Federal department or agency that is 
     auditing the activities of the Corporation or of any 
     recipient, and to any auditor receiving Federal funds to 
     conduct such auditing, including any auditor or monitor of 
     the Corporation:

     Provided, That upon establishment of reasonable cause that an 
     injunction is necessary to prevent probable, serious harm to 
     such potential plaintiff, a court of competent jurisdiction 
     may enjoin the disclosure of the identity of any potential 
     plaintiff pending the outcome of such litigation or 
     negotiations after notice and an opportunity for a hearing is 
     provided to potential parties to the litigation or the 
     negotiations: Provided further, That other parties shall have 
     access to the statement of facts referred to in subparagraph 
     (B) only through the discovery process after litigation has 
     begun;
       (9) unless, after January 1, 1996, and prior to the 
     provision of financial assistance--
       (A) the governing board of a person or entity receiving 
     financial assistance provided by the Legal Services 
     Corporation has set specific priorities in writing, pursuant 
     to section 1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal Services Corporation 
     Act, of the types of matters and cases to which the staff of 
     the nonprofit organization shall devote its time and 
     resources; and
       (B) the staff of such person or entity receiving financial 
     assistance provided by the 

[[Page H7763]]
     Legal Services Corporation has signed a written agreement not to 
     undertake cases or matters other than in accordance with the 
     specific priorities set by such governing board, except in 
     emergency situations defined by such board and in accordance 
     with such board's written procedures for such situations:

     Provided, That the staff of such person or entity receiving 
     financial assistance provided by the Legal Services 
     Corporation shall provide to their respective governing board 
     on a quarterly basis, and to the Corporation on an annual 
     basis, all cases undertaken other than those in accordance 
     with such priorities: Provided further, That not later than 
     30 days after enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall 
     promulgate a suggested list of priorities which boards of 
     directors may use in setting priorities under this paragraph;
       (10) unless, prior to receiving financial assistance 
     provided by the Legal Services Corporation, such person or 
     entity agrees to maintain records of time spent on each case 
     or matter with respect to which that person or entity is 
     engaged in activities: Provided, That any non-Federal funds 
     received by any person or entity provided financial 
     assistance by the Corporation shall be accounted for and 
     reported as receipts and disbursements separate and distinct 
     from Corporation funds: Provided further, That such person or 
     entity receiving financial assistance provided by the 
     Corporation agrees (notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the 
     Legal Services Corporation Act) to make such records 
     described in this paragraph available to any Federal 
     department, or agency or independent auditor receiving 
     Federal funds to conduct an audit of the activities of the 
     Corporation or recipient receiving funding under this Act;
       (11) that provides legal assistance for or on behalf of any 
     alien, unless the alien is present in the United States and 
     is--
       (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as 
     defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
       (B) an alien who is either married to a United States 
     citizen or is a parent or an unmarried child under the age of 
     twenty-one years of such a citizen and who has filed an 
     application for adjustment of status to permanent resident 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and such 
     application has not been rejected;
       (C) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
     pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee 
     admission) or who has been granted asylum by the Attorney 
     General under such Act;
       (D) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
     as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of 
     deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)); or
       (E) an alien to whom section 305 of the Immigration Reform 
     and Control Act of 1986 applies but only to the extent that 
     the legal assistance provided is that described in such 
     section:

     Provided, That an alien who is lawfully present in the United 
     States as a result of being granted conditional entry 
     pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980, 
     because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of 
     race, religion, or political calamity shall be deemed, for 
     purposes of this section, to be an alien described in 
     subparagraph (C);
       (12) that supports or conducts training programs for the 
     purpose of advocating particular public policies or 
     encouraging political activities, labor or anti-labor 
     activities, boycotts, picketing, strikes, and demonstrations, 
     including the dissemination of information about such 
     policies or activities, except that this paragraph shall not 
     be construed to prohibit the training of attorneys or 
     paralegal personnel to prepare them to provide adequate legal 
     assistance to eligible clients or to advise any eligible 
     client as to the nature of the legislative process or inform 
     any eligible client of his or her rights under statute, 
     order, or regulation;
       (13) that provides legal assistance with respect to any 
     fee-generating case: Provided, That for the purposes of this 
     paragraph the term ``fee-generating case'' means any case 
     which, if undertaken on behalf of an eligible client by an 
     attorney in private practice may reasonably be expected to 
     result in a fee for legal services from an award to a client 
     from public funds, from the opposing party, or from any other 
     source;
       (14) that claims, or whose employees or clients claim, or 
     collect attorneys' fees from nongovernmental parties to 
     litigation initiated by such client with the assistance of 
     such recipient or its employees;
       (15) that participates in any litigation with respect to 
     abortion;
       (16) that participates in any litigation on behalf of a 
     local, State, or Federal prisoner;
       (17) that provides legal representation for any person, or 
     participates in any other way, in litigation, lobbying, or 
     rulemaking involving efforts to reform a State or Federal 
     welfare system, except that this paragraph shall not preclude 
     a recipient from representing an individual client who is 
     seeking specific relief from a welfare agency where such 
     relief does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise 
     challenge existing law;
       (18) that defends a person in a proceeding to evict that 
     person from a public housing project if that person has been 
     charged with the illegal sale or distribution of a controlled 
     substance and if the eviction proceeding is brought by a 
     public housing agency because the illegal drug activity of 
     that person threatens the health or safety of other tenants 
     residing in the public housing project or employees of the 
     public housing agency: Provided, That for the purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term ``controlled substance'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802): Provided further, That for 
     the purposes of this paragraph, the terms ``public housing 
     project'' and ``public housing agency'' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 3 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a);
       (19) unless such person or entity agrees that it and its 
     employees will not accept employment resulting from in-person 
     unsolicited advice to a nonattorney that such nonattorney 
     should obtain counsel or take legal action: Provided, That 
     such person or entity or its employees receiving financial 
     assistance provided by the Corporation shall also agree that 
     such person or entity will not refer such nonattorney to 
     another person or entity or its employees that are receiving 
     financial assistance provided by the Legal Services 
     Corporation; or
       (20) unless such person or entity enters into a contractual 
     agreement to be subject to all provisions of Federal law 
     relating to the proper use of Federal funds, the violation of 
     which shall render any grant or contractual agreement to 
     provide funding null and void: Provided, That for such 
     purposes the Corporation shall be considered to be a Federal 
     agency and all funds provided by the Corporation shall be 
     considered to be Federal funds provided by grant or contract.
       Sec. 505. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation or provided by the Corporation to 
     any entity or person may be used to pay membership dues to 
     any private or non-profit organization.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation may be used by any person or 
     entity receiving financial assistance from the Corporation to 
     file or pursue a lawsuit against the Corporation.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation may be used for any purpose 
     prohibited or contrary to any of the provisions of 
     authorization legislation for fiscal year 1996 for the Legal 
     Services Corporation that is enacted into law: Provided, 
     That, upon enactment of Legal Services Corporation 
     reauthorization legislation, funding provided in this Act 
     shall from that date be subject to the provisions of that 
     legislation and any provisions in this Act that are 
     inconsistent with that legislation shall no longer have 
     effect.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended, 
     $1,000,000.

           Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
     Federal Holiday Commission, as authorized by Public Law 98-
     399, as amended, $250,000.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $103,445,000, of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used 
     toward funding a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions, and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and 
     provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (i) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance, (ii) any travel or transportation to or from such 
     meetings, and (iii) any other related lodging or subsistence: 
     Provided, That immediately upon enactment of this Act, the 
     rate of fees under section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 
     (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)) shall increase from one-fiftieth of 1 per 
     centum to one twenty-ninth of 1 per centum and such increase 
     shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to this 
     appropriation, to remain available until expended, to recover 
     costs of services of the securities registration process.

                     Small Business Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     103-403, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $217,947,000: Provided 

[[Page H7764]]
     further, That the Administrator is authorized to charge fees to cover 
     the cost of publications developed by the Small Business 
     Administration, and certain loan servicing activities: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
     revenues received from all such activities shall be credited 
     to this account, to be available for carrying out these 
     purposes without further appropriations.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $8,750,000.


                     business loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $5,000,000, and for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans, $146,710,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 
     631 note, of which $1,700,000, to be available until 
     expended, shall be for the Microloan Guarantee Program, and 
     of which $40,510,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 1997: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $97,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, as amended, $34,432,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $78,000,000, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriations for Salaries and Expenses.


                 surety bond guarantees revolving fund

       For additional capital for the ``Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund'', authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act, as amended, $2,530,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note.

        administrative provision--small business administration

       Sec. 501. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Small Business 
     Administration in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in title IV, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  The bill before us provides for the merger of the inspector general's 
office of the U.S. Information Agency with the inspector general's 
office of the Department of State and the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency.
  As the chairman of the committee knows, H.R. 1561 preserves for 
extensive reorganization the foreign affairs agencies of the U.S. 
Government, including the very merger called for in this bill, and 
during the course of our work, we discovered an anomaly in the 
interpretation of the civil service laws under which individuals 
working in the acquired agency in a merger lost all of their protection 
under the civil service laws, if, and only if, the work they were doing 
was deemed identical in function with some kind of work being done in 
the agencies into which they were merged.
  Our Committee on International Relations decided this was 
inappropriate under the circumstances and specifically legislated 
against the interpretation in section 510 of H.R. 1561, which was 
passed by the House on June 8. Our decision was based on the view that 
all individuals other than those appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate who are on the day before the merger 
employed at agencies to be merged should be considered for assignment 
in the merged agency and judged in the case of adverse personnel 
actions based on generally applicable merit procedures. They should 
certainly not lose their jobs over the arbitrary question of which 
agency was merged into which.
  Would the chairman, therefore, agree that the rule we decided on 
would be appropriate in the circumstances, and would he be willing to 
undertake to clarify if necessary, in statutory language, that this 
would be the case should this provision be accepted by the other body?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept the suggestion of 
the gentleman on this organizational issue that the authorizing 
committee has addressed in its legislation. It is our hope that the 
solution would be worked out in the context of the authorization bill, 
but if it is not, we would attempt to work it out in conference on the 
appropriations bill.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just take a very brief moment to enter into a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers].
  I had intended on offering an amendment to restore funds to the 
authorized level for the Radio Free Asia. Just a few days ago we voted 
on the Bereuter amendment, which reaffirmed our collective commitment 
to Radio Free Asia. The subcommittee looked at this, I know, and came 
to the conclusion that the money available plus the $5 million that is 
included in this bill would be sufficient because there is not an 
expectation that Radio Free Asia will be up and running soon. I hope 
that is an error, that it gets up and running sooner rather than later.
  Should Radio Free Asia get off and running as we hope, I would just 
hope the chairman and ranking member would work with us to insure 
sufficient money would be available.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He has been very 
avid in his support of Radio Free Asia and has worked very actively 
with this Member and with our subcommittee. We certainly would consider 
a reprogramming request at a later time if there is need for it and 
will try to work with the gentleman to satisfy his concerns.
  As the gentleman knows, there is $5 million in this bill for Radio 
Free Asia. There is $5 million in additional carryover funds expected 
to be available in fiscal year 1996. They have not yet appointed the 
board for the broadcasting system, but if at the time there is a need, 
we can look at reprogramming funds. I assure you we will discuss that 
with you further.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V? If not, the Clerk will 
designate title VI. The text of title VI is as follows:

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 1996, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity, (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes 

[[Page H7765]]
     offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes 
     any functions or activities presently performed by Federal 
     employees; unless the Appropriations Committees of both 
     Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 1996, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance 
     of such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels 
     for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
     shipyards located outside of the United States.
       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title VI?


                    amendment offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 2.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: At the appropriate place, 
     insert the following:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR DIPLOMATIC 
                   FACILITIES IN VIETNAM

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay for any cost 
     incurred for (1) opening or operating any United States 
     diplomatic or consular post in the Socialist Republic of 
     Vietnam that was not operating on July 11, 1995; (2) 
     expanding any United States diplomatic or consular post in 
     the Social Republic of Vietnam that was operating on July 11, 
     1995; or (3) increasing the total number of personnel 
     assigned to United States diplomatic or consular posts in the 
     Socialist Republic of Vietnam above the levels existing on 
     July 11, 1995.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kingston-Gilman-Barr-
Dornan amendment which bars the use of Federal funds for implementing 
the President's ill-considered, pre-mature decision to expand 
diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
  Nothing in this amendment interferes with our efforts to identify, 
locate and repatriate the remains of U.S. service personnel.
  According to the National League of Families, since the President 
lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam, remains of only eight 
Americans, of over 2,200 still missing, have been accounted for since 
February of 1994.
  A Chinese mortician who has passed a polygraph test, testified under 
oath that he preserved nearly 400 sets of remains of American 
servicemen.
  A significant number of those 400 remains are still not accounted 
for, and the administration can not explain why these remains have not 
been accounted for.
  It is obvious that--far from cooperating--Hanoi is coldbloodedly 
using the remains of missing Americans as pawns in a sordid game to 
extract maximum concessions from our Government. Let us not permit them 
those ghoulish tactics.
  Many veterans groups, support our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends a forceful message to Hanoi that 
the Congress will not just sit idly by and permit them to filmflam the 
American people.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  If Vietnam wants normalized relations with the United States--then 
they must deal honestly with us and must provide the full and fair 
accounting that they promised.
  We owe that much to those who gave so much for all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in opposition to this amendment which will prevent the 
complete normalization of relations with the Republic of Vietnam.
  Having just returned from Vietnam, I stand to bear witness to the 
extraordinary efforts being made to locate every single American 
soldier missing there.
  I departed for Vietnam with grave skepticism about the claims of the 
Vietnamese Government that they were providing every piece of 
information available on the fate of missing American soldiers.
  After seeing the efforts being undertaken by our military people and 
the Vietnamese--and listening to our military leaders on the ground in 
Vietnam, I believe that the Vietnamese Government is being completely 
cooperative and honest.
  Admiral Macke told me that the Vietnamese Government has shown 
excellent cooperation.
  Lt. Col. Timothy Boffe with the Joint Task Force overseeing the MIA/
POW project in Vietnam explained to me that when the United States asks 
for information the Vietnamese deliver, nothing is being withheld.
  We must continue to do everything in our power to help American 
families identify the remains of their loved ones, and we are. By 
establishing an official diplomatic dialog, we will expedite this 
process. Extending diplomatic relations to Vietnam does not mean that 
we forfeit all leverage with that government. Full normalization will 
be a continuing process, including the grant of most-favored-nation 
trading status.
  This action will help heal the wounds of Vietnam. With a greater 
sharing of information, we will continue to search out the MIA's to 
give peace of mind to the families of those who served valiantly but 
have not returned.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment undermines the 
President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
  Congress should not micromanage foreign policy by cutting funds that 
improve our relationship with Vietnam.
  Diplomatic relations with Vietnam have entered a new phase of 
cooperation designed to serve the legitimate interests of both 
countries and contribute to the cause of peace, stability and 
cooperation in Southeast Asia.
  Since the United States lifted the embargo levied against Vietnam 
last year, our diplomatic, financial, and economic ties to Vietnam have 
grown.
  More importantly, the Vietnamese have been cooperating fully on the 
issue of MIA's.
  For the better part of the last 20 years, the United States has tried 
to resolve the POW/MIA issue by isolating the Vietnamese, by denying 
them benefits of trade and diplomatic relations--and this policy has 
failed.
  Progress has come on the POW/MIA issue because we actively engaged 
the Vietnamese, encouraged cooperation, and created incentives to 
ensure compliance.
  The Vietnamese handed over 100 new documents on missing United States 
servicemen to me when I visited there last month. They have also 
honored my request to give United States officials consular access to 
Ly Van Tong, a United States citizen of Vietnamese origin imprisoned in 
1993.
  VFW Commander in Chief ``Gunner'' Kent, a marine Vietnam veteran 
representing over 2 million veterans, supports normalization and has 
said:

       If by normalizing relations with Vietnam we can further the 
     process leading towards the fullest possible accounting, then 
     the VFW will support such a decision.


[[Page H7766]]

  Recognizing Vietnam does not have to mean forgetting the MIA's. It 
can mean establishing even more cooperation--economic and diplomatic--
between the two nations.
  Such cooperation will boost chances for more success in learning 
about the fate of those missing since the Vietnam war.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, even though I was a POW in 
Vietnam for 7 years, I understand the importance of our business access 
to Vietnam's emerging market. But I refuse to endorse opening relations 
with a country that simply will not provide us with information which 
they fully admit to having about our POW's and MIA's.
  Vietnam's communist leadership just cannot be trusted. They have led 
us to alleged crash sites that, on inspection, had been recreated for 
U.S. visits. We have received animal bones that the Vietnamese said 
were human bones. This does not illustrate cooperation, in my opinion.
  Vietnam never lived up to the 1974 peace agreements. The time has 
come for the war to end, but it must be a two-way street, and Until 
Vietnam demonstrates that they can work with us in good faith, keep the 
promises that they have made, they should not be rewarded with all the 
benefits of full diplomatic relations with the wealthiest, freest 
nation in the world.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan], who has been a longtime supporter of this proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from New York 
was given 2\1/2\ minutes of the 5 minutes. The gentleman has used that 
2\1/2\ minute time period.
  If, however, there is no one seeking time in opposition, the 
gentleman from New York may ask unanimous consent for those 2\1/2\ 
minutes if he does so at this point.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida seeks the time?
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, it was our understanding it was 5 minutes 
on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. That was not the request. The request was for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 5 
minutes on each side with regard to this.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] is recognized.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of the time. I will not belabor 
this point.
  It is clearly not in our best interests to take away our opportunity 
to communicate with Vietnam in a diplomatic nature.
  So at this time I want to go on record in opposition to the amendment 
as proposed by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, the President's decision to confer full 
diplomatic recognition to Vietnam, prior to establishing the fullest 
possible accounting of our American POW's and MIA's, was wrong. In my 
judgment the dignity and honor of those 58,000 Americans who died 
fighting for freedom in the Vietnam war and the memory of the 2,200 
American MIA's would be violated were this Nation to enter into formal 
relations with Vietnam at this time.
  It's been more than 20 years since the United States withdrew from 
the Vietnam war, and at no time in that entire period has Vietnam been 
completely forthcoming in answer to repeated requests for assistance in 
locating American MIA's.
  For these reasons, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2076, the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that essentially prohibits 
Federal funds from being used to establish full diplomatic relations 
with the Communist Government of Vietnam. I am proud to have the 
privilege of offering this amendment with my colleague from Georgia, 
Jack Kingston--a distinguished member of the House Appropriations 
Committee, and Chairmen Solomon and Gilman among others.
  The amendment is both straightforward and simple. It will prohibit 
any of the bill's funds from being used to open or operate any new 
United States diplomatic or consular post in Vietnam after the 
retroactive cut-off date of July 11, 1995, or expand any post that 
existed prior to that date. It also prohibits funds from going to 
increase the total number of personnel assigned to such posts above the 
level that existed on July 11.
  During a hearing before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the 
House National Security Committee, current officials of the Pentagon's 
Defense POW/MIA Office [DPMO], and recently retired senior field 
investigators of the military's Joint Task Force Full Accounting 
[JTFFA] revealed under oath that Vietnam continues to: First, withhold 
remains; second, withhold essential documents and records; and third, 
manipulate field investigation to include coaching and intimidating 
witnesses as well as manipulating evidence at crash sites.
  Many of the remains returned in recent years from Hanoi draped with 
the American flag have been discovered to be animal bones or non-
American remains.
  Some 163 remains returned to the United States from Vietnam have 
shown sign of chemical processing and prolonged storage. There are 
potentially 400 such processed remains.
  During the Reagan administration when the United States officials 
adhered to strict negotiating principles, 169 MIA's from Vietnam were 
accounted for, an average of 21 per year. During the Bush 
administration, 96 MIA's were accounted for, averaging 24 per year. 
However, during the first 2\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration, 
only 30 MIA's have been accounted for, a drop to only 12 per year. But, 
even more telling, since the Clinton administration lifted the trade 
embargo, the number of those accounted for has dropped to a mere eight.
  As Presidential candidate, Mr. Clinton named four criteria for the 
normalization of relations with the Government of Vietnam. To this day 
those criteria have not been achieved.
  The President's own standards were: First, Concrete results from 
efforts on Vietnam's part to recover and repatriate American remains; 
second, continued resolution of discrepancy cases; third, further 
assistance in implementing trilateral investigations with Laos; and 
fourth, accelerated efforts by Vietnam to provide all POW/MIA related 
documents that will help lead to genuine answers.
  Since President Clinton defined the criteria, progress has been 
almost totally limited to fate determinations produced by joint U.S./
SRV investigations. Resolution means accountability, defined by the 
U.S. Government as the man returned alive, or his remains, or 
convincing evidence as to why neither is possible. In nearly all 
instances of the 117 with reported confirmation of death, evidence also 
indicates that Vietnam should be able to locate and provide remains. Of 
the 81 special remains cases--94 individuals--now being pursued 
jointly, unilateral efforts by Vietnam to locate and provide remains 
are required on all but the died-in-captivity [DIC] cases. The DIC 
cases require joint investigation due to wartime burial, mostly in the 
south.
  There are some 300 Americans who were last known alive under 
Vietnamese control. Their status remains unresolved. Further, only 
three sets of remains have been returned of 97 Americans known to have 
died in captivity--85 percent of approximately 600 Americans captured 
in Laos were under Vietnamese control.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the President's decision was wrong, 
this amendment corrects that decision. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment, support the MIA's and POW's and their families that so 
heroically served this great Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 102, after line 20, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made 
     known to the federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds (1) that the United Nations undertaking is 
     a peacekeeping mission, (2) that such undertaking will 
     involve 

[[Page H7767]]
     United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of 
     a foreign national, and (3) that the President's military 
     advisors have not submitted to the President a recommendation 
     that such involvement is in the national security interests 
     of the United States and the President has not submitted to 
     the Congress such a recommendation.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, further, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 
minutes, and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have no objection. Does that mean we get 5 minutes 
on this side? Mr. Chairman, who is to control the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Who seeks to control time in opposition?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will seek time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes also in support of the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act, and 
H.R. 1530, the defense authorization bill, both of which contain 
provisions severely restricting deployment of U.S. troops under foreign 
command, are now law, or have been passed by the House.
  The amendment I offer today is a compromise proposal drafted with the 
support of the ranking Democrat in the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and it will apply 
these restrictions to this spending bill. I prefer to see that the 
provisions contained in H.R. 7 and H.R. 1530, which were approved by 
the House be enacted into law. These bills contain important 
certification and reporting requirements concerning U.S. involvement in 
U.N. missions that should be the law of the land.
  In the interim, however, this amendment provides some measure of 
reassurance to Congress that U.N. mission debacles such as UNOSOM in 
Somalia will be avoided in the future.
  In short, this amendment would prohibit the placement of U.S. troops 
under U.N. command unless military advisers report to the President and 
Congress such deployment was in the security interests of the United 
States.
  I just want to restate to my colleagues the current U.N. command 
structure is largely unworkable. Current structure brought us the 
tragedy in Somalia and remains inept in Bosnia. The United Nations must 
rework its structure if it is to remain viable. As it currently stands, 
I do not see how we can subject Americans to that unworkable structure, 
needlessly endangering their lives.
  I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and 
his staff, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and his 
staff, my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and his 
staff for working with me on the matter.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle, we are prepared 
to accept the amendment, thinking it is a good one, and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2015

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would 
like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment which would have 
withheld money for any official congressional travel to North Korea 
until North Korea ends its policy of discriminating against certain 
Members of this Congress in permitting travel to North Korea.
  As the only Korean-American in Congress, the Speaker and the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations asked me to lead a special 
bipartisan delegation to North Korea in an effort to provide an in-
house assessment of the nuclear agreed framework and future relations.
  This bipartisan delegation was rejected, yet another congressional 
mission was not. I have very convincing evidence that this rejection 
was based on my national origin and political philosophy and perhaps 
that of others in the delegation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a direct insult to Congress. North Korea is 
deliberately insulting this Congress, with some Members obviously being 
more friendly to North Korea than others. We should not tolerate this 
demeaning insult.
  My objective is to send two strong messages: One, to North Korea, 
Congress will not accept this insult. Congress, not the North Koreans, 
will decide which Members of Congress represent this institution 
abroad.
  Since North Korea needs the United States Congress, not the other way 
around, my message is, ``Accept the delegation we choose to send or 
none will be sent at all.''
  The second is to the State Department.
  I am disappointed at the apparent lack of seriousness the State 
Department has given to North Korea's insult. North Korea is not going 
to change its position unless strong and convincing representations are 
made at much higher levels.
  The State Department has been too busy appeasing North Korea at the 
expense of Congress and the dignity of our own Government. What is the 
personal threat of North Korea? Will Korea not attack us? This is 
really embarrassing.
  Mr. Chairman, in lieu of offering this amendment at this time, I 
welcome the commitment of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] to 
help me get this important message across to North Korea and the State 
Department, loud and clear. With the help of the gentleman, I am 
willing to give the State Department one more chance to get tough with 
the North Koreans.
  Furthermore, as a means of protesting North Korea's insult and 
showing solidarity, I urge my colleagues to boycott traveling to North 
Korea until this discrimination ends.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Kim] not offering his amendment at this time and his willingness 
to give the State Department one more chance. In return, as the 
chairman of the subcommittee, I commit to raise this situation directly 
with Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and to relay the concern of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] that the State Department 
should be making this issue a higher priority.
  The Department is expected to do a much better job of making North 
Korea appreciate the role of Congress in determining the pace and scope 
of future relations and the seriousness of Pyongyang's insult to 
Congress. I fully support the choice made by Speaker Gingrich and the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], of Mr. Kim to lead a bipartisan delegation 
to North Korea representing the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I see North Korea's rejection of this codel as a 
rejection of the House as a whole. Congress cannot cede its 
decisionmaking authority on Member travel to the Communist dictatorship 
of North Korea.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, North Korea's direct snub of Congress 
raises serious questions about the sincerity of 

[[Page H7768]]
North Korea's other interactions with the United States, including 
Pyongyang's commitment to the nuclear agreed framework. Do they intend 
to only cooperate on some parts of the agreement and not others?
  Mr. KIM. With our chairman's commitment and that of the gentleman 
from New York, I will not offer my amendment at this time with the 
understanding that I will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the resolution 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim]. I think it is appalling 
that another country would sort out who they want of our congressional 
delegation to visit their country and to decide arbitrarily that the 
gentleman from California could not be admitted to North Korea, and it 
is for that reason I urge our colleagues to be supportive of the Kim 
resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title VI?


                    amendment offered by mr. zimmer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 102, after line 20, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act shall 
     be used to provide the following amenities or personal 
     comforts in the federal prison system--
       (A)(i) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who 
     are segregated from the general prison population for their 
     own safety;
       (ii) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through 
     whatever medium presented;
       (iii) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or 
     training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or 
     other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
     equipment of any sort;
       (iv) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates, or 
     heating elements;
       (v) the use or possession of any electric or electronic 
     musical instrument.

  Mr. ZIMMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I will take only 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with prison amenities. Prison 
perks are bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. My 
amendment is designed to start eliminating them from Federal prisons.
  In some prisons, inmate amenities are better than what law-abiding 
Americans have. Prisons should be places of detention and punishment; 
prison perks undermine the concept of jails as deterrence. They also 
waste taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would help end this taxpayer abuse by 
prohibiting funds from being spent in Federal prisons on luxuries such 
as martial arts instruction, weight rooms, in-cell televisions, 
sexually explicit or violent movies, and expensive electronic musical 
instruments. We must make sure we are spending public funds wisely, not 
using them on amenities that have little bearing on institutional 
security and that far exceed basic standards of human dignity.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment has won the support of the Law Enforcement 
Alliance of America, the Nation's largest coalition of law enforcement 
officers, crime victims and concerned citizens. This is a reasonable 
amendment. It does not provide for a return to the chain gang. It does 
provide for a return to common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Prison perks are bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. 
My amendment is designed to start eliminating them from Federal 
prisons.
  In some prisons, inmate amenities are better than what law-abiding 
Americans have:
  The Lompoc, CA, Federal penitentiary offers premium cable TV, movies 
7 days a week, pool tables, handball, tennis, and miniature golf.
  The Duluth, MN, Federal prison camp is called Club Fed. It provides a 
movie theater, musical instruments, softball fields, and game rooms.
  The Federal prison in Manchester, KY, in which some State politicians 
have taken up residence, has a jogging track, several basketball 
courts, and multiple TV rooms.
  Prisons should be places of detention and punishment. Prison perks 
undermine the concept of jails as deterrence. They also waste taxpayer 
money.
  My amendment would help end this taxpayer abuse by prohibiting funds 
from being spent in Federal prisons on luxuries such as martial arts 
instruction; weight rooms; in-cell televisions; sexually explicit or 
violent movies; and expensive electronic musical instruments.
  Earlier this year during consideration of the anticrime component of 
the Contract With America, this House accepted a no-frills prison 
amendment I offered that requires the Attorney General to set specific 
standards governing conditions in the Federal prison system that 
provide the least amount of amenities and personal comforts consistent 
with constitutional requirements and good order and discipline in the 
Federal prison system.
  That amendment also requires the Bureau of Prisons to submit an 
annual audit to Congress listing exactly how much is spent at each 
Federal prison for basics and how much is spent on extras, perks, and 
amenities.
  This requirement will allow Congress to get a handle on whether we 
are spending taxpayers' money on reasonable items to maintain and 
secure prisoners, or whether money is being wasted on luxuries that 
many law-abiding Americans cannot afford.
  We must make sure we are spending public funds wisely--not using them 
on amenities that have little bearing on institutional security.
  My amendment has won the support of the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America, the Nation's largest coalition of law enforcement officers, 
crime victims, and concerned citizens.
  This is a reasonable amendment. It does not provide for a return to 
the chain gang. It does provide for a return to common sense.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this side, we accept this amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 40.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendent offered by Mr. Skaggs: Page 102, after line 20, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 609. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for ``USIA Television Marti Program'' under the 
     Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act or any other program of 
     United States Government television broadcasts to Cuba.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and the 
time be equally divided between the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] and a Member on this side in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does any Member seek recognition in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the use of 
any funds in this bill for the operation of TV broadcasting to Cuba, 
otherwise known as TV Marti. Put quite simply, this program is, has 
been, and will continue to be, a colossal waste of U.S. taxpayers' 
money.
  Virtually no one in Cuba has, is, or will ever be able to receive a 
TV Marti signal. We are broadcasting into the black hole created, 
unfortunately, by the very effective jamming of this program by the 
Castro government.
  Mr. Chairman, in the process, however, we have thrown away something 
on the order of $90 million over the last several years in an empty 
gesture of political symbolism that accomplishes absolutely nothing in 
terms of the interests of the United States relative to Cuba or Latin 
America.

[[Page H7769]]

  Mr. Chairman, the research conducted on this by USIA's own 
researchers has demonstrated that there is no effective viewership of 
TV Marti. Pursuant to the appropriations bill enacted a couple of years 
ago, we required USIA to set up a review committee on broadcasting to 
Cuba and to inform Congress whether there was any effective viewership 
at all. That advisory committee came back with a clear finding that no 
one sees TV Marti.
  Private researchers have gone to the island to see if they can find 
the TV Marti signal. No one can see TV Marti.
  In the process of trying a Rube Goldberg contraption to improve the 
signal being sent to Cuba, we compromised for a while our Caribbean air 
defenses, all again in this vain effort to get a TV signal into Cuba 
which no one sees.
  Mr. Chairman, there is now under way, at a waste of millions more in 
taxpayers' money, an effort to convert what had been a VHF program to a 
UHF program. That misses a couple of fundamental technical points. One 
is that most TV sets in Cuba do not receive UHF. The second is, 
verified by technical experts in this country, that it would be far 
easier to jam UHF signals than VHF signals. So no matter how you look 
at this, unless you are interested in spending tens of millions of 
dollars, in the very, very difficult budget time we are now in, on 
symbolism that has no practical effect, to no benefit to the interests 
of the United States, it is time to put this program out of its intense 
misery.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


 Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey to the amendment offered 
                             by Mr. Skaggs

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs: In the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment, strike the period at the end and 
     insert the following:
     , when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that such use 
     would be inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the 
     March 1995 Office of Cuba Broadcasting Reinventing Plan of 
     the United States Information Agency.

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Skaggs amendment and in 
support of the legislation that I am offering to his amendment. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is aimed at the 
heart of what is sometimes called surrogate broadcasting. An even 
better term, Mr. Chairman, is freedom broadcasting sending the message 
of freedom to people who live in countries where this message is not 
permitted to be carried on domestic radio and television stations.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Skaggs], would 
eliminate TV Marti, would deprive millions of Cubans of not only vital 
information around the world and about the world, but also the hope 
that comes with knowing that the free world cares. My substitute 
perfecting amendment guarantees fiscal responsibility without 
compromising our commitment to freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, eliminating or crippling freedom broadcasting into 
Cuba, as the Skaggs amendment would do, would send exactly the wrong 
message at exactly the wrong time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side 
have 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There is no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full minute, but I want to 
associate my remarks with those of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith], particularly in regard to the electronic communications of 
Marti toward the Island of Cuba. That is a very, very important subject 
for us as Americans. We should not forget that.
  Mr. Chairman, many people from Cuba are here and enjoying our 
freedoms, but they also have friends and relatives back there, and the 
best way to communicate with them is for us to do it through the 
freedom network which the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] addresses. I compliment the gentleman for addressing it in 
his substitute amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton], my good friend, for his very kind words and for 
his support for the amendment I am offering.
  Mr. Chairman, eliminating or crippling freedom broadcasting to Cuba, 
as the Skaggs amendment would do, would sent the wrong message at 
exactly the wrong time. The Castro dictatorship is at an all-time low 
in domestic support and international prestige. Like the two recent 
Clinton-Castro immigration agreements, the silence of Marti-TV would 
provide new hope for the Castro dictatorship and a fresh dose of 
despair for the Cuban people.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the amendment that I am offering 
achieves fiscal responsibility by guaranteeing that no funds would be 
spent for TV-Marti except in accordance with a careful and thoughtful 
plan for the streamlining and reinvention of the Office of Cuba 
Broadcasting proposed by the then Director, Mr. Richard Lobo, and 
approved by USIA Director Dr. Joseph Duffy in March of 1995.
  These reforms are going to be implemented; they can save taxpayers 
money without sacrificing our commitment to end the slavery in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Colorado insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. SKAGGS. No, Mr. Chairman. I have consulted with the 
Parliamentarian, and I am afraid my point of order would be unlikely to 
be sustained, so I will not put us through the exercise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Skaggs amendment to defund TV-Marti. I think it is very important 
that this amendment passes. I think it is time that we recognize that 
that program is an anachronism from the past, that what we ought to do 
is engage in a modern policy with the people of Cuba to engage them 
both in trade, and personal communications, and travel and tourism, and 
start to bring our values to their island, and to let them expand the 
values that they hold, and they can do that by greater contact with 
this country, greater contact with the rest of the world, and I think 
the notion that somehow we are going to provide some kind of meaningful 
engagement through the use of this process is simply ridiculous. We 
ought to understand that we ought to get out of the business of the 
embargoes, we ought to get out of all these old policies from the cold 
war, and start out fresh with the people of Cuba, and this program has 
never worked. It has been an incredible waste of money. It has not 
reached the population for which it was designed.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to stop this program, but, once this program 
is stopped, we ought to move on to a new relationship.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Today, Mr. Chairman, is an interesting day, the 26th 
of July, the anniversary of Castro's movement in Cuba, big celebration 
day for him, the day he got his so-called revolution going, and the 
revolution culminated with the oppression that has been on the Cuban 
people for 36 years. It is also interesting that just last week the 
Christian Science Monitor pointed out the vast new campaign of 
repression that Castro is engaging in against the--all signs of 
budding, free, independent press within Cuba. Our colleagues who are 
proposing this amendment, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the gentleman 

[[Page H7770]]
from New York [Mr. Serrano], in their Dear Colleague they say 
Television Marti uses tax dollars to produce and broadcast programs to 
Cuba, but Cubans cannot see them because the signals are jammed by the 
Cuban Government, so, they continue to say, while we support USIA's 
efforts to provide biased news, we are convinced it makes no sense to 
continue with the program.
  In other words, the essence of their argument is, because Castro 
engages in jamming of TV Marti, that we should give up. In other words, 
during the heat of the cold war, when the Soviet Union was most 
engaging in jamming of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and was 
very successful, at some point jamming up to 90 or 95 percent of the 
transmissions of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, if we were going 
to engage in the philosophy, accept the philosophy of the proponents of 
this amendment of the kill TV Marti, we would simply say, ``Oh, they 
won. They are jamming 80 percent, they are jamming 85-90 percent, so we 
have to give up.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is not the American way. When we have a burden to 
overcome, when we have a situation where Castro was spending tons and 
tons of oil to jam, attempt to jam, the signal, we overcome the 
jamming, and we are doing that. We are engaging in the conversion of 
the UHF which the technicians tell us is going to markedly increase the 
receptivity of TV Marti, and, if we have to, we will use a C-130. We 
will get the transmission through. That is the American way, not throw 
in the towel, not give up, not give Castro a victory on the 26th of 
July.
  Reject this effort by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little time to respond to the 
substitute amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  The underlying assumption of the substitute of course is that this 
program can be fixed. The problem is that it is beyond fixing. It is 
not within the technical capabilities of the United States to make this 
thing work, and we should recognize that and get on with more 
productive uses of our very, very scarce resources.
  Let me quote again the findings of the panel appointed by the United 
States Information Agency, which had an interest, since this operates 
under USIA auspices, in seeing a successful finding. But the panel that 
the USIA itself appointed said the following about this program, and I 
quote: ``The panel is able to state categorically that at present TV 
Marti's broadcasts are not consistently viewed by a substantial number 
of Cubans. Whatever TV Marti's shortcomings, they are negligible 
compared to its inability to reach its intended audience.''
  Now I understand the strongly held feelings of the gentleman from 
Florida that just spoke and many that believe that this is an 
absolutely stellar effort to show the flag. I understand that. I think 
it is just too expensive for its purely symbolic effect.
  In passing my amendment, we are not giving Castro a victory. We are 
giving the American taxpayers a victory.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment is not going to solve the 
problem, it should be rejected, and I again urge my colleagues to 
support the original amendment as I offered it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be an additional 6 minutes. There are a number of speakers who 
would like to come forward on this important issue and for the interest 
of the membership of knowing the breadth and the fervor, equally 
divided, of course, with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not want 
to object. We have been asked time and time again by the majority to 
cooperate in closing down debate so we can get out of here.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-
consent request.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen], who has been very stalwart on the issue of human rights 
in Cuba.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
substitute amendment and in favor of the important functions served by 
television broadcasting to Cuba.
   Mr. Chairman, for decades Castro has been a master at manipulating 
information inside Cuba to serve his evil purposes. This information 
monopoly went unchallenged until the creation of Radio and TV Marti 
which effectively broke the information embargo that Castro has imposed 
on the people of Cuba.
  The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that both Radio and TV Marti have been 
invaluable in providing the enslaved Cuban people access to information 
they would otherwise not obtain.
  In Europe and Asia, American broadcasts played a critical role in 
freeing the enslaved countries of those continents against their 
Communist rulers. In Cuba, the broadcast of these two stations have 
made similar breakthrough impacts in the short number of years they 
have been in operation.
  Moreover, the importance of the broadcasts of Radio and TV Marti have 
dramatically increased, given the newly enhanced repression by Castro's 
poilce state against journalists who try to act as independent sources 
of information.
  Just 2 weeks ago, it was reported that Rafael Solana Morales, the 
founder of a clandestine independent news agency, Havana Press, was 
arrested by Castro's police state.
  That same day, July 12, Jose Rivero Garcia, of the Council of Cuban 
Independent Journalist, was likewise arrested and detained.
  Similarly, other independent journalists from the Association of 
Cuban Independent Journalists were also arrested, detained, and 
interrogated in early July by Castro's thugs.
  As one of the victims of Castro's repression, Solano Morales, stated: 
``This is harassment and attempted intimidation of the free press in 
Cuba, but it will not have the desired effect.''
  The words of Mr. Solana Morales symbolize the determination of these 
journalists to continue working against the Castro regime.
  What message will we be sending to these journalist dissidents if we 
move to eliminate broadcasting to Cuba?
   Mr. Chairman, Castro has recently been working overtime to portray a 
reformist image of the island. However, Cuba remains to this day a 
totalitarian state where no freedoms of expression, press, assembly and 
all others that we in this country enjoy, exist.
  A human rights activist of the organization America's Watch recently 
phrased it perfectly when referring to the Castro regime, ``They've 
been working hard since about November to improve their image, but this 
shows there's no real change in the structure of human rights 
limitations.''
  Without Radio and TV Marti the Cuban people might have never found 
out about the intentional sinking by Castro's thugs of a tugboat filled 
with refugees and the resulting death toll of dozens of Cuban citizens, 
mostly women and children.
  Without Radio and TV Marti the Cuban people would have been blind to 
the massive demonstration in Havana last year, or the refugees crisis 
that followed it.
  TV and Radio Marti allow the Cuban people to differentiate the facts 
from the fiction that Castro promotes inside the island. This is 
critical to help the dissident movement on the island obtain the 
information necessary to continue with their courageous activities 
against Castro.
   Mr. Chairman, let us not hand Castro a victory or buy into his cheap 
image enhancement.
  TV Marti is an important tool in our battle to bring freedom and 
democracy to the Cuban people. Its elimination would undermine the 
efforts of those inside the island who look toward us as partners in 
their struggle to eliminate tyranny in Cuba.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment and reject 
attempts to eliminate TV Marti and its message of freedom.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Committee for 2 minutes on this vital issue in my district.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have 

[[Page H7771]]
  agreed to a time certain on these amendments, and I think it is 
extremely important to move this bill efficiently tonight. I think 
everybody agreed by unanimous consent on these time limits, and I would 
very reluctantly ask that the gentleman reconsider his request.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. Let 
me just say, had I been here, I would have objected, or I would have 
sought to at least insure this. It is interesting the only Cuban-
American Democrat cannot get a unanimous-consent request from his own 
colleagues to be able to speak for 2 minutes for the second-largest 
concentration in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would reconsider his 
objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  I hope there will be restrained respect of our time limits and that 
the gentleman will come in if they have these issues and they want to 
speak on them. I hope in the future that we would come and get time 
during the agreed-upon originally time, and I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for withdrawing his objection, and I have, in every way 
along the way, attempted to cooperate. As a matter of fact, I came the 
other day to speak on something, and even though I had asked 
prematurely to speak, I was not given time, so I have tried to 
cooperate, but I appreciate the gentleman's withdrawing his objection.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have enough time in 2 minutes, but let me just 
briefly say for those who say this is a cold-war relic, I say someone 
should tell Fidel Castro that it is a cold-war relic. We just had four 
ex-political prisoners from a generational difference, one who was just 
here a year ago, just came here a year ago, others who spent more time 
in Castro's jail than any other political prisoner in the world, Mario 
Chamas, in excess of 30 years. He saw his son born outside of jail and 
his son die while he was still in jail. He said tonight here in the 
House of Representatives in one of our offices where we were having an 
open meeting for Members to come, ``Don't cut Radio and Television 
Marti. Give the opportunity for the people in Cuba to have an open 
window, the only window of information that, in fact, we have,'' and 
this report which was authored by those who have the capacity, the 
intellect, and the technological background say we can do so, we can 
fix Television Marti to insure that in fact it is available to all the 
people of Cuba.
  Lastly let me just say that the fact of the matter is this House just 
approved to transmit into China and into a Communist country. All we 
ask our colleagues to do is to keep the opportunity for information to 
continue to flow to the people of Cuba for an item that already exists. 
The fact of the matter is that 90 miles away from our shores there is a 
society that is closed, that has not been awoken to the waves of 
democracy that have come throughout the world, and whose only 
information comes from this great country as to what is happening in 
the rest of the world.
  Do not close that window on these people. Vote against the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
                              {time}  2045

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] has 4 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 
the right to close.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue which undoubtedly has the 
passion of several Members, and I respect that passion and their desire 
to fulfill what they believe is the right course of action when it 
comes to Cuba and Mr. Castro. So I say this with deep respect for their 
views.
  But I must say that at a time when we are cutting back on so many 
different programs, to spend $90 million on TV Marti, when we know we 
are cutting back on some very, very essential programs, to me is 
difficult to swallow.
  Worse, when I realize that TV Marti does not even reach most of the 
Cuban people because it is blocked, it is something that cannot get 
through as much as we might desire, some people might desire, makes it 
a doubly more difficult thing to swallow.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to consider the fact that what we 
are trying to do with these budget bills, these spending bills, is to 
try to come up with ways to spend our money the best we can for 
Americans. I would hope that we would concentrate on those. As much as 
I respect a lot of the Members who are my good friends, who have a 
great deal of interest and, as I said before, passion on this issue, I 
would urge colleagues to vote for the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this month, our Committee on International 
Relations took a bold, bipartisan step forward to prescribe proactive 
measures to help bring freedom to Cuba once and for all. The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Skaggs], is a step 
backward--and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Skaggs amendment and 
to support the Smith amendment.
  Despite the controversy that usually marks any debate on Cuba, there 
is one issue on which all sides generally agree: that is on the 
manifest need to communicate with the Cuban people--to offer them a 
window to the real world and a hopeful glimpse at the future.
  That is the spirit behind Radio and TV Marti.
  One of the key provisions of legislation offered by Mr. Burton, which 
has been referred favorably by our Committee to the Whole House, is a 
requirement that the President start planning now for United States 
support to a democratic transition in Cuba.
  That plan, which was an idea conceived by our good friend and 
committee colleague, Mr. Menendez of New Jersey, will lay out clear 
steps toward the normalization of our political and economic relations 
with Cuba.
  A hallmark of that plan is the ability to communicate its contents to 
the Cuban people with two simple purposes: to offer them hope and to 
refute Castro's virulent propaganda that we mean them harm.
  We cannot hope to achieve that mission--nor reach the broader 
objective of advancing liberty's reach--if we gut broadcasting to Cuba.
  Let's be clear: there is one reason that TV Marti's audience is 
limited: because that's the way Castro wants it. If we silence TV 
Marti, we will be handing his dictatorship a victory by default. TV 
Marti's reporting is journalistically sound and evenhanded. That is why 
Castro is against it; that is why we should be for it. From the point 
of view of United States Cuba policy--which has been compromised 
recently by mixed signals--I cannot conceive of a worse time in recent 
memory to serve up a ``stocking-stuffer'' for Castro. I urge my 
colleagues to consider the broader policy issues when making the 
decision on this amendment.
  Let's not abandon the field, particularly at a time when our policy 
is at a crossroads and when Castro is looking for cracks in our 
resolve. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Serrano].

[[Page H7772]]

  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I do not really think that this is an 
argument about our resolve to do what we have to do for democracy or 
any other subject we want to discuss. This is just a bad expenditure. 
That TV station has not been seen in Cuba for the last couple of years. 
In fact, the reports are that it was seen one evening with Popeye 
cartoons. I know Popeye is good and funny. I do not know if Popeye is 
good at undoing any kind of government.
  Those of you who are new to this House and strong on the issue of 
cutting budgets, this is a good one to start. The problem here is 
simple, and you are going to hear it throughout this discussion. There 
is a lobby in Miami that I envy. They are so strong. They can get their 
own TV station, their own radio station, their own embargo, and, of 
course, they can present it as something that is against everything 
that is wrong and in favor of everything that is right.
  This, my friends, is a waste of money. When was the last time someone 
came from Cuba and said I saw TV Marti? They do see CNN programming. 
What they do see is the World Series when it goes in on the antenna. TV 
Marti does not get in. Whether or not it is jammed by Mr. Castro is not 
the point. I do not allow anything to come to my House that I do not 
want.
  So maybe he has got a problem with that. That is his decision to 
make. But why are we spending tax dollars on something that does not 
work because we have got people telling us that they want electronic 
toys to play with? If they want electronic toys, let those lobbyists 
get a Radio Shack card and go and buy something and leave TV Marti 
unfunded and save that money.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, when I was a Fulbright student in 
Communist Romania staying with a Romanian family, I remember how 
important to them was Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America. It 
was the only way they could get the truth unfiltered and know what was 
going on in the outside world, as well as inside their country.
  As U.S. Ambassador to that harsh Communist country, I saw even more 
how indispensable was an American broadcast voice. It made all the 
difference in Eastern Europe and Russia.
  If we want to assist in the demise of Fidel Castro and his Cuban 
Communist regime and assist in the establishment of a free democratic 
government in post-Castro Cuba, TV Marti is needed now more than ever. 
I want history to record that when the Cuban people seeking freedom 
needed a voice and a news lifeline, at least in this small way we did 
not fail them.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen Communists up close. They do not respond to 
offers of friendship or well-meaning gestures of good will. They have 
nothing but contempt for those in Congress, the media, and academia who 
turn a blind eye to their crimes. I have seen Ceausescu, Li Peng, and 
many other Communist leaders.
  Castro is a cold-blooded killer. He is a mass murderer. He knows only 
one language, force. While he lives, he is a threat, not only to the 
people of his island, but to the people of southern Florida. That is 
why we must give the people of Cuba every tool that we can to help them 
throw Castro into the Caribbean. That is why he must beat back attempts 
to cut the Cuban people off from TV Marti. TV Marti is the Cuban 
people's link to freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, we must defeat the Skaggs amendment, and we must 
support the Smith amendment. Let us defeat this ill-timed amendment of 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and send Castro into the 
oblivion he so richly deserves. Do the right thing for freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no stronger advocate of eliminating layer 
after layer of the foreign policy bureaucracy than this Member. Despite 
that I will always argue that you cannot put a price on freedom.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time, 3 minutes, to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, a week ago this Congress answered the imprisonment of 
an American citizen in China with Radio Free Asia. Today we celebrate 
the end of the cold war by recognizing the role of Radio Free Europe, 
knowing that more than any tank, as much as any plane, or the bravery 
of any soldier, the truth has always been America's most effective 
weapon.
  Now the question before this Congress is, is the Congress that for 
all of these years supported Radio Free Europe, the very same 
individuals that voted for Radio Free Asia, now to abandon the truth in 
the fight against dictatorship in Cuba? That, my friends, is the 
question.
  But it is not a new question. Last year the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Skaggs] came to this Congress with the same question on the same 
bill. It was argued then that there was no news, except USIA did a 
study and 70 percent of the broadcasting is news. It was argued then 
that it would not reach the Cuban people, except USIA says that it 
reaches most of the Cuban people. It was argued then that it was not 
effective or in the national interest, except that USIA said that is 
technically sound, it contains essential information, it is in the 
interests of the United States Government, that it sustains the Cuban 
people's right to hear and see the news.
  Mr. Chairman, we did not have this debate last year, because the 
opponents and the proponents agreed for an independent study on the 
value of Television Marti. And you have it. It works, it is effective, 
it is the truth.
  I cannot imagine the despair this Congress would cause to thousands 
of Cubans who last year took to the streets of Havana to demonstrate 
for their freedom, to the hundreds who are in political prisons, to 
those who risk their lives every day, organizing, planning, hoping, 
praying for freedom, to give Fidel Castro this gift.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more in the great traditions of this 
country than to believe that our most effective tool is a discussion of 
ideas, the promotion of our form of government, the announcement of the 
truth. Television Marti is in that tradition.
  It is not that it cannot be better. This same study by the Clinton 
administration which endorsed the programming and its effectiveness 
also found ways to save money, and we are doing that; spending less, 
spending more effectively, but all the time letting the people of Cuba 
know that the truth, America's greatest weapon, is still their ally. I 
urge support of the Smith substitute.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the beautiful rhetoric of my friend from 
New Jersey. Unfortunately, the gentleman grossly mischaracterizes the 
report of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting to Cuba, and 
particularly as it dealt with TV Marti. Let me just quote, as opposed 
to characterizing, what the advisory committee found, which is about 
179 degrees different than the characterization of the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  ``The panel is able to state categorically that at present, TV 
Marti's broadcasts are not consistently received by a substantial 
number of Cubans. Whatever TV Marti's shortcomings, they are negligible 
compared to its inability to reach its intended audience.''
  Mr. Chairman, most of the argument we have heard in the last few 
minutes appeals to our sense of history about Radio Free Europe and our 
present determination with regard to Radio Free Asia, which, 
unfortunately, misses the point.
  This is TV. Signal strength, ability to penetrate, to reach an 
audience, is wholly different. I am not attacking Radio Marti, which in 
fact does get to its audience and, with some reforms, can serve a 
useful purpose. This is TV Marti. It is not seen.
  This has nothing to do with your views about Fidel Castro. It has 
everything to do with your views about whether we should continue to 
throw away U.S. taxpayer money on a program that does not work.
  My colleague mentioned, and it is very appropriate to mention, that 
there are other avenues in the TV realm that do reach Cuba: CNN, HBO, 

[[Page H7773]]
and other media get through. They are not jammed, and they are 
effective alternatives to the state-controlled TV in Cuba. TV Marti is 
not.
  Unfortunately, it cannot be fixed. We should be under no illusion 
that somehow fiddling with the dials, going to UHF, or some other 
gimmickry, is going to solve the problem. In fact, it is really beside 
the points that have been made tonight, which are all about symbolism 
and nothing about practicality. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to 
indulge ourselves in this symbolism at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we should also realize that even if the signal got 
through, it only gets through at wee hours of the morning, when 
virtually no one is up to watch in any case.
  This is a colossal boondoggle; it is a waste of money; it does not 
serve the national interest. The advisory committee found, without any 
equivocation, that this is a failed effort, and my conclusion is, we 
should not continue it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe this was characterized as a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is an amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], will be postponed.

                              {time}  2100


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that we have faced this 
particular parliamentary situation before in which proceedings have 
been suspended on an amendment to an amendment, and we have not yet 
gotten to the underlying amendment. I would reserve at this time, if I 
may, therefore, the right to a recorded vote on the underlying 
amendment. I will not otherwise have an opportunity to ask for a vote 
in the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would put the question on the underlying 
amendment to the committee after action on the amendment to the 
amendment was completed at a later point.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman 
of the appropriations subcommittee on a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, in your subcommittee report under title V, page 124, 
there is report language about the future of some SBA offices around 
the country. The report recommends to the SBA, and I quote, ``not to 
close my district or branch offices at this time.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if this pertains to the branch 
office in Springfield, IL, which is in my district and shared by the 
gentleman from southern Illinois.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the language does pertain to the 
Springfield, IL office.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of your efforts to behalf of the 
small business men and women in central Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as you 
are aware, the Springfield office is the only SBA office in Illinois 
outside of the city of Chicago. While I support the SBA's efforts to 
restructure, that effort should not be at the expense of those in rural 
Illinois. In addition, Mr. Chairman, several States with offices had 
less lending activity than the Springfield office, but were kept open. 
In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his 
assistance, and I look forward to working with him in the future on 
this issue.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the efforts 
of my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood], and to thank 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], for protecting excellent 
branch offices of the Small Business Administration such as the 
Springfield, IL office from closing until appropriate consultation with 
the Congress has been achieved.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleague from the 
city of Springfield, IL. I believe this is a valuable addition to the 
economy of southern and central Illinois to have this office remain 
open.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I wish to engage the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice 
and State Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the State Department 
Strategic Management Initiative or the SMI.
  Mr. Chairman, on July 13, 1995, the Secretary of State sent to 
Congress his SMI narrative as part of the overall effort by the 
administration to consolidate and reduce departmental operations both 
at home and overseas. Part of the SMI is a proposal to close 19 
overseas posts, including the United States consular office in 
Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico.
  It is my understanding that the members of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice and State will carefully consider this targeted 
closure.
  This particular consulate is strategically located on the United 
States-Mexico border and will play an increasing role in the 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  The office is also the only slated overseas post that directly 
affects a major U.S. city and a port of entry.
  The office also helps United States businesses with information 
regarding the markets for their products in Mexico, works with law 
enforcement officials on both sides of the border and helps United 
States citizens who are traveling, living and conducting business in 
Mexico.
  Again, it is my understanding that the subcommittee may appeal the 
SMI, specifically the potential closure of the U.S. consultant 
Matamoros office. Is this correct?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTIZ. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. the subcommittee 
intends to exercise its full-review prerogative concerning the State 
Department's SMI proposal.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman 
on this issue.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky regarding the Legal Services 
Corporation and its funding for Native Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, the LSC is restructured so that 
there are only two budget lines, one for administration and oversight, 
$13 million, and the second for basic field programs of $265 million.
  Absent from the Legal Services Corporation appropriations is a 
separate line for native American program funding now used to fund the 
34 Indian legal services programs nationwide. Regrettably, over the 
years the LSC has drifted away from the original congressional intent 
to provide needed essential legal services to low income Americans.

[[Page H7774]]

  I commend the chairman and the committee for remedying the misguided 
activities of a few LSC grantees that have instead promoted their own 
social and political agendas instead of helping our Nation's citizens 
with basic legal services.
  With that said, I would like to clarify the intention of the chairman 
and the committee on whether the basic field funding line will be 
available to use to fund grants to competitive bidders to provide legal 
services to native American people. In my State of Oklahoma, which is 
home to more federally recognized tribes than any other State in this 
Nation, the one LSC recipient providing legal services to the Indian 
population attempts to serve the Indian people from the more than 39 
tribes and urban Indian people throughout the State, with the total 
client eligible population of about 150,000, with a staff of four 
attorneys.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
yielding to me. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Kentucky, for this colloquy.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma is quite correct when he talks about 
basic legal services. Also, we should note a basic legal 
responsibility. Because of our treaties with sovereign Indian nations 
and the trust relationship that this Federal Government enjoys with 
those nations, we have sacred treaty obligations to our native American 
citizens. This is why I am gratified to join the gentleman from 
Oklahoma and the distinguished subcommittee chairman to assure native 
Americans that basic legal services will be available in the days 
ahead.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Watts] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] for bringing 
their concerns to the attention of the subcommittee and to the 
chairman.
  Let me assure the Members that it is not only the intention, but the 
expectation, of the committee that Native Americans receive legal 
services with funding provided through the competitive bidding process 
for basic field programs. Basic field funding will be available for 
grants to competitive bidders to provide legal services to Native 
Americans. I will be pleased to work with the gentlemen as we proceed 
to conference on the bill to further clarify the committee's 
expectation. I thank the gentleman for bringing the matter to our 
attention.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation is 
important to assisting vulnerable people in our society. Women and 
children are among the vulnerable who without assistance often find 
themselves in abusive situations that they cannot control. The impact 
of these situations is significant and may result in homelessness and 
the loss of necessary financial resources for food, maintenance, and 
health care.
  The destabilizing effect can be illustrated by situations occurring 
across the country and in my own State of Maryland, where the Legal Aid 
Bureau, Inc., has 13 offices geographically located to help eligible 
clients. In 1994, more than 36,000 cases were opened to assist 
families, many of which were headed by women. More than 21,000 of the 
clients served were females--including children.
  In May, a maternal grandmother caring for her 4\1/2\-year-old 
grandson since birth called Legal Aid after the boy's father assaulted 
her, snatched the boy naked from the bathtub, and fled her house for 
several hours. He did this in retaliation for the grandmother's refusal 
to grant him food, money, and sexual favors to allow her to continue to 
care for her grandson. This incident occurred after he had stalked and 
harassed her. Legal Aid Bureau attorneys went to court for her and got 
a protective order, and they will seek an emergency custody order this 
week.
  An asthmatic mother who recently had surgery for cancer was locked 
out of her home by her husband, while he attempted to remove furniture 
and other household items. When she insisted on being let into her 
home, he became physically abusive, and cut the cord on the air 
conditioner which she needed to help her breathe. She was in dire 
straits. Legal Services helped her to get a protective order which 
included financial support during the time of the order, and it 
restrained her husband from contact and allowed her to remain in her 
home.
  In another case, an abused woman living on the eastern shore of 
Maryland was wrongfully accused by her husband of abuse to gain an 
advantage in a parental custody dispute. He snatched the child and 
claimed that he was protecting the child. Legal Services helped to 
establish that he was really the abuser and was successful in defending 
against his petition for a protective order. She was granted temporary 
custody, and he was enjoined from abusing her.
  In my congressional district in Montgomery County, as a result of 
domestic violence and in fear for her safety and that of her five 
children, a woman left her husband of 15 years. He had been the primary 
support for the family. She was able on her own to obtain housing, 
although it was neither decent nor safe; still, because of her 
financial situation, she was threatened with eviction. Legal Services 
helped her to get section 8 housing and the family was able to relocate 
to decent housing with adequate space. This stabilized the family 
during a very disruptive and unsettling time.
  Millions of children are the victims of abuse from their parents and 
others who are responsible for their care. This abuse goes on somewhere 
in the country every minute of the day. Legal Services in Maryland 
represents children who are neglected or abused. Such neglect or abuse 
ranges from a child being left alone by a parent, or not being provided
 a nutritional meal, to physical or sexual abuse that results in severe 
injury and, all too often, death. Legal Services has helped the infant 
that has been abandoned at birth, the child who is left unattended, the 
child who is beaten, burned by cigarette butts because he wouldn't stop 
crying, or scalded by hot water to teach him a lesson.

  These children are vulnerable, and without the protection of the law, 
they would be endangered and lost. Legal Services advocacy on behalf of 
children assures that they will not be the subject of abuse, and helps 
to secure services for children such as housing support, health care, 
food, educational programs, and necessary counseling. The work of Legal 
Services on behalf of families and children touches at the heart of 
what we value in this country--decent housing, adequate health care, 
food, and a safe environment. Because of the importance of safety in 
our society, Legal Services programs have supported legislation to 
prevent abuse and to protect the abused.
  In Maryland, the Legal Services Program, on behalf of clients, 
supported a change in the Domestic Violence Act which greatly improved 
the protections for abused persons.
  The new law was enacted in 1992, and expanded protection from abuse 
to include members of the household, including stepchildren and others 
who resided in the home for at least 90 days. The law was strengthened 
by allowing the court to grant protections such as financial 
maintenance, custody, and child support from 30 days to up to 200 days, 
and by allowing the court to order financial maintenance, custody and 
child support during the time of the order.
  In 1994, the Legal Services Program in Maryland opened 8,219 domestic 
cases, represented 13,000 cases involving children who were neglected 
or abused, and opened 3,466 cases to assist people with housing 
problems. With limited Federal funding, many people have been helped to 
assure access to justice by our poorest citizens.
  In general, the States are not allocating funds for civil legal 
services for the poor citizens. Without this federally funded program, 
the most vulnerable members of our society will not have the ability to 
get inside the court room door to seek judicial protection of their 
rights.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title VI?


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: On page 102, after line 20, 
     insert before the short title the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . None of the funds made available in title II for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the 
     heading `Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding and Conversion' 
     may be used to implement sections 603, 604, and 605 of Public 
     Law 102-567.''.

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, sponsored by myself and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], simply completes the business that 
this House started earlier today. As you may remember, there was an 
amendment sponsored earlier today by the chairman and by the gentleman 
from West Virginia which struck $12 of 

[[Page H7775]]
the $20 million included in the appropriation bill for the 
modernization of the NOAA fleet.
  This will now essentially bar NOAA from spending the other $8 million 
on modernizing its fleet and instead simply says if it needs additional 
fleet services, it should use it on contracting out. This amendment 
will once and for all terminate NOAA's ill-conceived $1.9 billion fleet 
modernization effort and force NOAA out of owning and operating its own 
vessels in favor of private and nonprofit ships and data gathering.
  Over half of the fleet modernization account is currently used to 
repair NOAA vessels. If we stay on course, it will cost us twice that 
amount simply to keep the fleet up and running.
  Since the fleet will cost nearly $2 billion to replace, we have to 
find a better way.
  H.R. 1815, the NOAA authorization bill passed last month by the 
Committee on Science, repeals NOAA's fleet modernization authority. It 
does not authorize any funding for the NOAA fleet modernization 
account. Private firms are more than capable of supplying NOAA with the 
data they need for mapping and charting. In fact, an association of 57 
research institutions that operate or utilize the 27 ships of the U.S. 
academic research fleet is much better prepared to operate a fleet than 
NOAA. NOAA's operating costs are at a minimum 25 percent higher.
  This amendment, I should point out, is supported by both the Interior 
Committee and the Committee on Science.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug] to privatize the NOAA fleet.
  The U.S. Government through NOAA owns a number of research and 
mapping watercraft. These boats are falling apart. Currently in this 
bill NOAA gets $8 million to fix the boats in this bill. This $8 
million would be the first drop in the bucket in spending money. I say 
let us privatize the fleet. Let us get the Government out of owning 
these watercraft; that is, let the private sector do it and save 
millions of dollars for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer 
an amendment to title V.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Kansas?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to know what time is anticipated on this amendment?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be seeking a limitation on time at 
the appropriate time of 20 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] to explain the 
amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would replace 
funds for the Office of Advocacy. We will be as brief as we possibly 
can.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman object to returning to title V, or 
does the gentleman object to the 20-minute time allocation?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if it can be done in 10 minutes, I would 
not object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman objects to the 20-minute time allocation.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers] to offer an amendment to title V?
  There was no objection.
               Amendment offered by mrs. meyers of kansas

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Meyers of Kansas: Page 97, line 
     8, strike ``$217,947,000'' and insert ``$222,325,000''.
       Page 98, line 6, strike ``97,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,622,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided between the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The SBA has taken a reduction of 42 percent. We intend to authorize a 
reduction of 42 percent and in this bill we have taken a reduction of 
36 percent. We intend to authorize a reduction of the Office of 
Advocacy of about a third in our authorization. However, in the 
committee, the Office of Advocacy was zeroed out.
  Let me make very clear, Mr. Chairman, that all of the small business 
groups are strongly supportive of the Office of Advocacy.
  When I first became chairman, a number of the small business groups 
said to me, the two most important things in the SBA were the loan 
programs and the Office of Advocacy. They could get along without other 
things, but not the loan programs and the Office of Advocacy.
  This was stated on behalf of NFIB, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National 
Small Business United, Small Business Legislative Council, the National 
Association for the Self-Employed, and the Small Business Council of 
America. They all strongly support the Office of Advocacy, and they 
support this amendment.
  Some Members may not be familiar, Mr. Chairman, with what the Office 
of Advocacy does, but it is the advocate among other agencies of 
Government on behalf of small business, and it has performed extremely 
well. It is an independent office, appointed by the President, 
confirmed by the Senate so that it has the clout to go toe to toe with 
all other agencies.
  It has testified before Congress approximately 200 times and about 25 
percent of that time it was either in opposition to administration 
policy or in the absence of administration policy on an issue.
                              {time}  2115

  It is also the linchpin, it is absolutely the central position for 
enforcing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This is an act which we just 
strengthened in the Contract With America. There has been some concern 
expressed about lobbying activities. However, an Inspector General's 
report, after investigating this matter at my request and at the 
request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] has said that 
lobbying did not take place.
  I am very rushed. I want to state strongly that this is a key vote by 
NFIB, that all the small business groups supported it; that if Members 
voted for the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the Contract With America, 
it is absolutely counter to that if Members do not support the Office 
of Advocacy. I would ask for Members' votes for the Meyers amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a new day in Washington. We are supposed to be 
picking programs that work and discarding programs that do not work. 
Twenty years ago the special interest groups got together and said, 
``You know what? Not only do we want to be at the table, we want to be 
inside the Federal building. We want to have our own Federal staff, 
paid for by the taxpayers. We want an office paid for by the 
taxpayers.''
  Carol Browner represents the environmental interests at ERA. Bruce 

[[Page H7776]]
  Babbitt represents the Interior's interests at Interior. Robert Reich 
represents labor, not the AFL-CIO. The Sierra Club does not have an 
office at EPA. I would suggest, first and foremost, that Phil Leder at 
the SBA represents the interests of small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this. We have reduced the SBA budget, with 
the good wisdom of the subcommittee and the full committee, by $337 
million over last year. Now is the time to pick the programs that work. 
Do we want to help small businesses that need access to capital, or do 
we want to fund studies that go to special interest groups and 
consultants inside the Beltway? Do we want to help women business 
owners get a start, or do we want to fund a 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old 
statistic-gathering operation?
  I would suggest to this committee and to the full House that we want 
to help small businesses. If Members care about Main Street businesses, 
they will want them to be able to have access to capital. How do we do 
that? We make sure that we defeat the Meyers amendment, and that we 
preserve the chairman's bill here that provides for the women business 
ownership program, it allows for prequalifying women business owners, 
it allows for the smallest of businesses, under $100,000, to get loans. 
If the Meyers amendment is approved, Members will be taking money away 
from small businesses to fund studies done by a so-called ``Office of 
Advocacy'' that is an advocacy office in name only.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to the Members, here is a book of 
some of their studies. Let me ask the Members, do they think the Main 
Street businesses in their hometown would benefit from the ``small 
business involvement in societal causes and empirical investigation of 
social responsibility, self-interest perspectives''? Is that a study 
you think they would benefit from? Those are the kinds of studies that 
come out of the Office of Advocacy. In the last 20 years, they have 
received upwards of $80 million, $80 million.
  My distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from Kansas, is wrong. We 
would no sooner stand in the well of this House and ask to fund an 
office for the AFL-CIO or the Sierra Club or any other special 
interest. Let us put the interest of the Main Street merchants, the mom 
and pop businesses, first.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if this office is supposed to be 
fighting regulations, how come in the last year alone, when there was 
proposed 68,000 new regulations, that the Office of Advocacy only saw 
fit to object to 30? Since January of this year, they have only 
objected to 12.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that try as they might, this is an 
office that could not fulfill the mission originally given to it. It 
could not be such a small operation and go against Cabinet-level 
departments. If we really care about regulatory flexibility and 
paperwork reduction, we will put that operation in a legal counsel 
office, where it can be
 better administered. The Office of Advocacy has a 20-year history of 
failing in that mission. With all due respect to my colleagues at the 
NFIB, and I was head of the Small Business Administration for 4 years 
in New York, and here in Washington at the Office of Legislative 
Affairs, and I can tell the Members I saw firsthand.

  Do we want to fund programs that actually teach businesses how to get 
over problems, give them the technical assistance? Do we want to fund 
them and allow them to grow their businesses? If we do, we will, in due 
respect, defeat the Meyers amendment. It is wrongheaded. If we want to 
help studies, we want to fund studies. If Members want to fund 
statistics that are 10 years old, then go that way. If we care about 
Main Street businesses and the businesses across this country, in all 
due respect, we will not allow the Office of Women Business Ownership 
to be cut 50 percent, we will not allow the small business development 
centers, each one in each one of our districts to lose $4 million and 
all of a sudden, after we have cut $333 million over last year, come up 
with $4.4 million, take it out of loan-making and give it back to the 
consultants inside the Beltway.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] has 10 seconds 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Small Business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding before we came 
here that this was the Meyers-LaFalce amendment. That still is my 
understanding, although it has not been characterized in that manner, 
because this is a bipartisan approach we are taking to preserving the 
office that we think is the most important office for the small 
business community of America.
  However, it is not just we who believe that. The gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes], who was a regional administrator, in addition to the 
chief lobbyist for the SBA while he was there, head of congressional 
relations, knows a lot about and developed a certain amount of 
antagonism, I think, toward the office. However, we recently had a 
White House Conference on Small Business. In the White House Conference 
on Small Business, thousands of individuals across America made a 
special point of coming in with a very high-ranking recommendation. 
That high-ranking recommendation was, at all cost, preserve the Office 
of Advocacy.
  The Contract With America, in the regulatory flexibility bill, 
provided the chief counsel with time to comment on proposed rules 
before they were even published. That is a new authority and confirms 
the advocates' authority to appear amicus curiae in Federal court. That 
was approved on March 1 of this year by a vote of 414 to 15.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bi-
partisan amendment sponsored by my good friend and colleague, the 
distinguished chair of the Small Business Committee, Mrs. Meyers, and 
the ranking minority member, Mr. LaFalce, to restore this important 
position.
  As chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Government 
Programs, I have worked closely with Mrs. Meyers in our top-to-bottom 
review of the Small Business Administration.
  As a part of that review, we held an extensive hearing focusing 
specifically on the Office of Advocacy and deemed it an important 
advocate for small businesses. In any bureaucracy, a well run 
advocate's office can be the difference between regulation written in 
reality, or imagination.
  Reputable small business organizations such as NFIB, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, National Small Business United, and the National 
Association of the Self-Employed all support our effort to retain 
funding for the Office of Advocacy.
  In fact, the recently concluded White House Conference on Small 
Business went so far as to make our effort to strengthen the Office of 
Advocacy one of the Conference's top priorities. Clearly, the White 
House Conference delegates from every Congressional district in the 
Country are all aware of the importance of the Office of Advocacy to 
small business.
  These delegates were chosen by ourselves, or elected by their fellow 
small business owners, because of their experience and knowledge of the 
problems facing small business everywhere.
  I have heard the claims that the Office makes SBA ``a weak two-headed 
agency,'' or that the Office is a political tool for the White House. 
These charges are inconsistent with the Office of Advocacy I have come 
to know as chairman of the
 Government Programs Subcommittee.

  The Office of Advocacy I know is rebuilding, into an agency which 
champions small business interests throughout the regulatory process. 
The Office of Advocacy is a strong, independent agency which is not 
afraid to take-on other agencies while working to promote small 
business interests. The Office of Advocacy has independently testified 
before Congress nearly 200 times voicing the concerns of American small 
business.
  Without the voice of the Office of Advocacy, small business interests 
and concerns could be gagged during the regulatory review process. 
Don't reverse the good work we did on Reg Flex; don't kill the dog 
while you're trying to get rid of the fleas.

[[Page H7777]]

  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our effort to 
save the Office of Advocacy.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Meyers-LaFalce 
amendment which restores funding for the ABA's Office of Advocacy.
  The Chief Counsel for Advocacy plays an important role by presenting 
and fighting for the views of the small business community. The Chief 
Counsel has a very different role than other administrators in the SBA; 
he is the independent voice within the agency that represents the 
interests of small business. The advocate may not necessarily represent 
the President's Administration position or that of the SBA, however, 
the SBA and other Federal agencies are required to fully cooperate with 
the Chief Counsel.
  While I personally may not agree with some of the position's taken by 
the Chief Counsel, I believe it is important to maintain the office 
which is the watchdog for small businesses. By passing the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, which was contained in the Contract With America, the 
Chief Counsel will now have the authority to protect small businesses 
from overzealous regulators.
  The Office of Advocacy plays a crucial role as the independent voice 
of small business. Here is an example in which the Chief Counsel's 
position was different from the administration's: January 20, 1995--the 
Chief Counsel supported 100 percent deductibility of health insurance 
premiums for small business, while the President supported only a 25 
percent deduction.
  In addition, the Office of Advocacy has submitted more than a 
thousand comments to regulatory agencies to insure that the interests 
of small business were considered during the rulemaking process. Each 
time a comment is filed with an executive branch agency, the Chief 
Counsel, in effect, takes a position independent of the administration.
  The Chief Counsel's advocacy has resulted in major cost savings for 
small business. For example: Enhanced poultry inspection--the USDA 
withdrew this proposed rule consistent with comments filed by the Chief 
Counsel on October 11, 1994. According to industry estimates, this 
withdrawal saved the poultry processing industry at least $450 million 
in up front costs, and at least $185 million in annual recurring costs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for small businesses 
by supporting the Meyers-LaFalce amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
  (Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers-
LaFalce amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I do not understand why anyone would want 
to get rid of SBA's Office of Advocacy.
  I have been on the Small Business Committee for 12 years and I have 
never heard of any serious opposition within the small business 
community to the Office of Advocacy.
  Just the opposite. The Office of Advocacy has consistently enjoyed 
strong support over the years from small business. Advocacy plays a 
very important role in representing the views and interests of 
America's small business before Federal departments and agencies.
  The recent White House Conference on Small Business recommended--and 
I quote--``permanent maintenance of the `independent role' of the U.S. 
Small Business Office of Advocacy.''
  The NFIB supports the Meyers amendment to restore partial funding to 
the Office of Advocacy. The Chamber of Commerce also supports the 
Meyers amendment. In fact, all of the major organizations representing 
small business support the Meyers amendment.
  I thought that this Congress was going to give greater weight to the 
views of small business. I thought there was an emerging bipartisan 
consensus to make sure that the voice of small business is heard in the 
regulatory process.
  By overwhelming margins we passed improvements to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  In fact, this House voted to expand the responsibilities of the 
Office of Advocacy. H.R. 926 allows the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
explicit authority to appear in federal court to review agency 
rulemaking.
  Why on earth would we want to sabotage these reforms without ever 
giving them a chance to work?
  Nobody is suggesting that the Office of Advocacy should be exempt 
from budget cuts. The Meyers amendment would cut about $1.8 million 
from last year's budget. That's pretty much in line with the 36 percent 
cut in the SBA's budget overall.
  But i strongly urge my colleagues to heed the recommendation of the 
White House Conference and preserve an independent voice for small 
business in the regulatory process.
  I urge you to support the SBA's Office of Advocacy and vote for the 
Meyers amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such times as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers-
LaFalce amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Meyers-LaFalce 
amendment which would restore funding to the Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy. Small business is vital to the 
economic health of the First District of Arkansas and the nation as a 
whole. Many times in my district I have been approached by small 
business owners telling me how they are being oppressed by 
overregulation. We have made a lot of progress in this Congress to 
correct excessive regulatory burdens and that is why I find it so hard 
to believe that this bill eliminates all of the funding to the Office 
of Advocacy. Many small businesses can't afford to have an advocate in 
Washington, so this office often serves as their one protection from 
overbearing bureaucracy. I am an adamant supporter of balancing the 
budget, but cutting out the entire Office of Advocacy is neither 
intelligent nor equitable to our small businesses. The Meyers-LaFalce 
amendment is both budget conscience and fair, cutting funds for the 
Office of Advocacy by 30 percent from the administration request while 
maintaining a barrier of protection for our small businesses. Thousands 
of small business leaders from across the country recently expressed 
their strong support for the office at the White House Conference on 
Small Business. These leaders recommended to the President that he 
should ensure permanent maintenance of the independent role of this 
office. Many leading business organizations have lent their support to 
the Meyers-LaFalce amendment, including the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Small 
Business Legislative Council. I firmly believe that the only prudent 
decision for this Congress is to support equitable, intelligent 
treatment of the SBA's Office of Advocacy. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Meyers-LaFalce amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, I have always valued the 
Office of Advocacy's candor in their testimony on executive agency 
compliance.
  The role of advocacy is to be the inside watchdog for Small Business. 
In this role, the office has consistently spoken up against agency 
attempts to unduly burden small businesses.
  It is important to note that this role is within the administration. 
I know the principal opponents of the office may criticize the office's 
lack of independence. But I believe it has done its job effectively in 
constantly interjecting the small business perspective.
  Of course there will still be regulations which small businesses 
oppose, but we cannot hope to solve these problem by silencing their 
only effective voice within the administration.
  At the White House Conference on Small Business, small businessmen 
and women from across the country affirmed their support for this 
office.
  One proponent of eliminating the office cites the NFIB, The U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, and other interest groups as the truly independent 
voices of small business. Looking past the partisan nature of some of 
these groups, I find it ironic that all of them in fact have stated 
their strong support for the Office of Advocacy and their opposition to 
its elimination.
  At a time when we have finally taken steps to provide the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act with 

[[Page H7778]]
much-needed judicial review, we must not eliminate the very office 
charged with its enforcement.
  I applaud Chairwoman Meyers and Congressman LaFalce for their 
bipartisan leadership on this issue and join them in strong support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers-
LaFalce amendment to restore funding for the Office of Advocacy at the 
Small Business Administration.
  The Office of Advocacy successfully served as an independent voice 
for small business in testifying before Congress and in representing 
the small business sector before Federal departments and agencies.
  The Office of Advocacy has been one of the parts of the SBA that has 
consistently received strong small business support over the years. 
Indeed, the delegates to the recent White House Conference on Small 
Business affirmed their support for the Office of Advocacy, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, 
and other small business advocacy groups wholeheartedly endorse the 
Office of Advocacy and support this amendment.
  Efforts to make the SBA more effective and efficient should continue 
to be explored, as they should be in programs throughout our 
Government. But to eliminate the Office of Advocacy makes no sense.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and to support the 
Meyers/LaFalce amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor the Meyers-LaFalce 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of small busies owners from Missouri 
and across the country in strong support of the Meyers/LaFalce 
amendment to restore funding for the Small Business Administration's 
Office of Advocacy.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I ask that 
Members of this body allow me to make the following observations 
regarding this bipartisan amendment before us.
  Both the chairman and the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee, the same members chosen by this body to represent the views 
of small businesses, stand before you today in complete agreement that 
the Office of Advocacy continues to provide an invaluable service to 
small business owners and should be maintained.
  Recently, thousands of small business owners from across the country 
convened in Washington for the White House Conference on Small 
Business. Participants bestowed praise upon the Office of Advocacy for 
its role in independently representing small businesses before Congress 
and other Federal agencies. Further, they recommended that the Office 
of Advocacy be permanently maintained as an independent entity.
  Advocates of the small business community such as the Small Business 
Legislative Council, the Association for the Self-Employed, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent 
Business [NFIB], have voiced their concerns about losing a unique 
liaison to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of 
government. Because the Office of Advocacy serves as an independent 
voice within the administration, they are better equipped to provide a 
clear and thoughtful assessment of the concerns before small business 
owners. Make no mistake; small business owners support the Office of 
Advocacy.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give an example of the positive contributions 
this office has made in regard to legislation effecting small business. 
In response to proposed legislation regarding the Clean Air Act, the 
Office of Advocacy objected to requiring more than half a million 
farmers to perform hazard assessments for ammonia fertilizers. As a 
result, The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments exempted farmers from this 
provision for a savings in excess of $1 billion.
  Examples such as this illustrate why members of this body, as well as 
Members of the Senate, have adopted provisions in pending legislation 
to increase the authority and responsibility of the Office of Advocacy. 
In other words, Congress wants the chief counsel to do more.
  As a member of this committee, I urge you to stand with small 
business owners from your district and across the country by supporting 
efforts to restore funding for the Office of Advocacy in the Small 
Business Administration.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the Meyers-
LaFalce amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and I would like to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes] for not objecting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] has 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say with the balance of my 10 seconds that 
if Members care about small business, they will defeat this amendment. 
I would just quote Hillel, the rabbi from the first century who said, 
``If not now, when? If not us, who?''
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the Meyers/LaFalce 
amendment to restore funding for the SBA's Office of Advocacy.
  I have been, and continue to, be a strong advocate of efforts to 
balance the Federal budget. However, the Office of Advocacy does not 
have to be eliminated to accomplish this goal. The appropriations 
process is about setting priorities, and in my view, eliminating the 
Office of Advocacy in order to fund other activities of the SBA, 
represents misplaced priorities.
  The Office of Advocacy serves as an important voice for small 
businesses on regulatory and policy issues, serving as the eyes and 
ears for small business throughout the Federal Government. Optimally, 
all agencies of the Federal Government would be sufficiently sensitive 
and responsive to the interests of small business, and if that were the 
case today, there would be no need for the Office of Advocacy. 
Unfortunately, however, that is not the case, and the small business 
community in this country needs the Office of Advocacy to intervene on 
their behalf and on behalf of their grassroots advocacy organizations 
to protect small business' interest.
  The bill before us cuts funding for the Small Business Administration 
by 36 percent from last year's funding in order to reduce our Federal 
deficit. The Meyer/LaFalce amendment adds no additional spending to the 
bill, it simply shifts funds from other activities within the SBA to 
fund this important activity. I urge your support.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, let me just say a few brief words in 
support of the Meyers amendment.
  I have been contacted by a number of constituents in support of this 
office. What's interesting is that these are constituents who would 
normally be asking me to keep government off their back.
  I understand the concerns expressed by the subcommittee. Clearly we 
do not want to fund an office which would not truly represent the 
interests of small business--particularly on issues such as health 
care.
  But the folks who do have the interests of small business at heart--
the House Small Business Committee and the National Federation of 
Independent Business both support the Meyers amendment.
  I commend Mr. Forbes for raising some important points with regard to 
the Office of Advocacy.
  But I think and the Small Business Committee thinks and NFIB thinks 
the office should continue.
  I hope everyone will support the Meyers amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers] will be postponed.


               amendment number 37 offered by mr. serrano

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano: Page 102, after line 20, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 609. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the Advisory 

[[Page H7779]]
     Board for Cuba Broad casting under section 5 of the Radio Broadcasting 
     to Cuba Act.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided between the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Serrano] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this, I think, is the last 
amendment of the evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, since I 
was reprimanded the last time for not being here to object, I would ask 
if through my objection I could ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart] whether he has any time available.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I would tell the gentleman, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just want 
to inuquire of the gentleman from Florida whether he intends to offer 
any amendments to this amendment or whether we are going to deal with 
this one straight up.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I have no 
amendments.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-
Balart] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman on his 
amendment. Let me point out that the participants in the White House 
conference to which the gentleman referred urged that this small 
business advocacy office be maintained as an independent agency.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say at the outset that I am troubled by 
the fact that when prior agreements are reached on time for amendments, 
depending on how late the session goes, we tend to change those 
agreements and that is why we have a limited time now.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds can be used to pay for 
the activities of the advisory board for the Cuba broadcasting, under 
the Cuba Radio Act. What happens is that recently, reports have come 
out in an investigation, a Federal investigation by the IG that 
indicates that the chairman of the board of the Advisory Board of Radio 
Marti is misusing his position as chairman of this board; is in fact 
writing policies that are not within his direction to do so; that he 
has in fact influenced the way Radio Marti conducts its business; that 
he has influenced Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba, and what kinds of 
things Radio Marti says. The IG report also denounces the fact that 
this gentleman determined who gets hired and who gets fired; that if 
you disagree with his desire to run his personal agenda, and someday 
return to Cuba as President of the island under his exiled government, 
that he then fires you. It is, in fact, a complaint by a person who was 
under fire, an employee of Radio Marti, that caused the IG 
investigation which denounces this action.
                              {time}  2130

  Now, if you have been close to this issue for years, and I have and 
others in this body have even longer than I, you know that this is no 
secret, that the worst kept secret in this country is the fact this 
gentleman, this chairman of this board, runs this program, in other 
words, the worst kept secret in America is that this station has become 
the electronic personal toy of this individual, who feels that he can 
control all kinds of political matters by this station. In fact, he is 
chairman of Radio Marti's advisory board and is only supposed to 
provide general advice to the White House about Radio and TV Marti.
  He has influenced both management of Radio Marti and news coverage. 
The Office of Inspector General of USIA has issued an interim report 
documenting examples of inappropriate influence by the chairman. There 
have been personal abuses and personnel abuses.
  A close associate was hired and promoted. Radio station employees who 
protested the influence were retaliated against. That is all in the 
report.
  In January, Radio Marti broadcast, at his request, statements that 
the administration was near agreement on immigration when, in fact, the 
administration was trying to work out other agreements.
  During the recent months, 280 stories in favor of a bill that the 
chairman supports tightening the embargo were aired on Radio Marti, 
while only 70 stories against the embargo were aired.
  Incidentally, my stories against the embargo were never aired, and I 
am a Member of Congress. So you can imagine how serious this stuff 
gets.
  The complaints traditionally are that this agency is being run not to 
service the needs of the United States, but to serve the needs of this 
one individual.
  You are going to hear from opponents of this amendment that this is a 
witch-hunt against a great American. Fine. You are going to hear from 
opponents saying they want to investigate the people who investigated 
to make sure that they were fair in their investigation. You are going 
to hear how this report was leaked and is unofficial.
  Well the fact of life is most of what is in this report, even when it 
is official, will stay the same, and it will say that we should not be 
using taxpayers' dollars to allow someone to run a nearly, if not 
fully, corrupt operation, which is the advisory board and his influence 
on it.
  Those are not the statements of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] or myself or other people throughout the years. There is 
finally, as reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times, the 
statement in a report that says this is horrible, this should not take 
place, this is improper. USIA probes activist's role at Radio Marti; 
anti-Castro activist is being probed: Cuban American has meddled in 
Radio Marti, officials say. This should not take place.
  What I am asking today is we are not attacking Radio Marti, but Radio 
Marti does not need an advisory board which is being run this way.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, we heard prior speakers on the 
amendment on TV Marti say, ``Oh, no, we like Radio Marti,'' and now we 
just heard a bunch of some minutes' criticism, systematic criticism of 
Radio Marti, Radio Marti; they just want to get rid of an advisory 
board that costs the taxpayers about $100,000-something a year. Of 
course, though, we just heard that is something that even though I 
think at the end we heard their support for Radio Marti, we just heard 
a bunch of time and criticism of Radio Marti, not TV Marti, Radio 
Marti.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
Mr. Serrano to eliminate the President's Advisory Board for Cuba 
Broadcasting [PAB].
  Mr. Chairman, the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting is important 
in assuring the continued efficient operation of Radio and TV Marti: 
two essential tools in our battle to eliminate the Castro tyranny in 
Cuba.
  The board seeks to make these two overseas broadcast services more 
efficient by eliminating redundant duties within their operations and 
its management.
  Moreover, the members of the board offer important expert advice on 
unique issues inside Cuba, in order to assure that accurate and 
independent news is reaching the island. 

[[Page H7780]]

  The Board is critical in assuring that Radio and TV Marti continue to 
offer the people of Cuba the facts instead of the fantasy and fiction 
which Castro's propaganda promote inside the island.
  Both broadcast services have been successful in achieving this 
purpose by undermining Castro's propaganda. Radio and TV Marti provide 
the Cuban people with accurate, up-to-date information that they would 
otherwise be denied by Castro's information embargo.
  Mr. Chairman, Fidel Castro and his regime proceed to set aside all 
critics and continue their repression of the Cuban people. The 
Department of State's Human Rights Report described the regime as ``* * 
* sharply restricting basic political and civil rights, including the 
right of citizens to change their government; the freedoms of speech, 
press, association, assembly and movement; as well as the right to 
privacy and various workers rights.''
  Amnesty International's recently released international human rights 
reports echoed the view of the State Department: ``Members of 
unofficial political, human rights and trade union groups continued to 
face imprisonment, short term detention, and frequent harassment.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, many of those who suffer from the evil 
actions described above are journalists who dare to challenge the state 
line which Castro and his information ministers publicly release.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, goes further than simply abolishing 
this board. It is part of a concerted effort by some to change the path 
of United States policy toward Cuba.
  Do not pacify Castro by moving United States policy toward 
reconciliation with the Cuban tyrant. To that end, they attack those 
persons and institutions which work toward the elimination of Castro 
and his totalitarian regime.
  To them, I remind them of the millions of Cubans who continue living 
without freedoms.
  Cubans like Rev. Orson Vila Santoyo who remains in prison after being 
arrested and sentenced to almost 2 years in jail for allowing religious 
services in his home. Cubans like Lt. Col. Nilvio Labrada, a former 
high ranking official of the Interior Ministry in Cuba who was recently 
sent to a psychiatric hospital for expressing publicly his views 
against Castro.
  Or the thousands of political prisoners who continue to dwell in 
Castro's prisons and the dissidents who suffer daily the harassment and 
persecution of the Castro regime.
  These are the Cubans we should be striving to aid in their struggle--
not Castro.
  This amendment would play into the hands who would rather flirt with 
the Cuban dictator rather than stand firm against his repression.
  The PAB is an institution designed to make Radio and TV Marti work 
and operate effectively.
  I urge my colleagues to break Castro's information embargo by 
supporting the PAB and rejecting this misguided amendment.
   Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. If you followed this 
issue for some time, you concluded, as I have, that some Members simply 
have a fixation with doing everything they can to eliminate everything 
with Cuba broadcasting, and I think there is only one person who has 
greater desire of eliminating this service, and that is Fidel Castro 
himself.
  Let me tell you what our colleagues to not hear in this debate. You 
do not hear a good-faith attempt to fix something and make it better. 
you have not heard one suggestion in that regard, just simply 
eliminate, eliminate, eliminate. The fact of the matter is I think we 
should have an investigation as to how the inspector general's not 
report, because it is not a report, because I called the inspector 
general. I said, ``Where is this report?'' And she said, ``It is not a 
report. I have it to some Members. I gave them the work product to 
date, but it is not a report.'' Imagine coming to the floor and 
painting it that way.
  We should be defeating this. This is not in the best interests. We 
should have the opportunity to focus the board, that focuses on these 
moneys that we are spending, and we should ensure that we do not permit 
what is said in a newspaper that is not, in fact, truthful, because in 
fact, we do not have a final report, and we should have an 
investigation as to how that report was released and how it got to the 
press.
  It is inconceivable to me to come to the floor and use that type of 
information which is incomplete and which does not serve the best 
interests of this institution.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. If you have followed this issue for 
years you may have concluded as I have that some Members simply have a 
fixation with eliminating TV Marti. Only the brutal dictator, Fidel 
Castro may have a stronger fixation with eliminating this service.
  Let me tell my colleagues what we do not see in the debate on TV 
Marti. We do not see a good faith attempt to fix something and make it 
better. I have not heard one--not one--suggestion that the service be 
improved from any of the Members cosponsoring this amendment.
  Instead, what we see is a big attempt to do Fidel Castro's dirty work 
for him. Castro is desperately afraid of TV Marti because it broadcasts 
the truth to the Cuban people, which he denies them every day. He is so 
afraid of that TV signal that he spends millions of dollars, 15 to 20 
fixed jammers, mobile land jammers, 40 full-time soldiers, and even 
helicopters he can scarcely afford, to jam its beam. Money he could use 
to feed a hungry people, he uses to deny them the truth.
  We have the technology to get TV Marti to penetrate the dictator's 
airwaves. That is what we ought to focus on here. The Report of the 
Advisory Panel on Radio TV Marti has spoken clearly on this issue. More 
than 100 experts and individuals with relevant expertise were 
interviewed. The panel and its staff reviewed several thousand pages of 
written material. And here is what it said:

       The time has come to convert TV Marti from VHF to UHF 
     transmission. The effort to probe this new approach will 
     require approximately one year and one million dollars. But 
     savings elsewhere during the year will more than offset this 
     investment.

  Let me add that money was already obligated. Just last week, the 
House voted nearly unanimously to require the USIA to begin a new Radio 
Free Asia service to Communist China. Today, we simply ask you to 
continue an already existing TV broadcast to Communist Cuba.
  Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have spoken clearly about the 
need to support their vital broadcasting services to Cuba of Radio and 
TV Marti. In a letter President Clinton stated:

       By strongly supporting Radio and TV Marti I want to send a 
     clear signal to those everywhere who struggle against 
     tyranny. Radio and TV Marti make genuine contributions to the 
     cause of human rights and democracy in the hemisphere. Both 
     help promote short and long term U.S. foreign policy goals.

  As I suggested earlier, we have been through this exercise before. 
Those of us with a strong interest in this issue agreed two years ago 
to a compromise which established an Advisory Panel on Radio and TV 
Marti. The members of the panel were agreeable to all involved, 
including the Members offering this amendment. The Panel was asked to 
assess and report on the ``purposes, policies, and practices of Radio 
and TV broadcasting to Cuba.''
  In March 1994, out came the verdict, and it was clear: now more than 
ever we must maintain intact the services of both Radio and TV Marti.
  These are but some of the more important conclusions of the report:
  First, an overwhelming number of Cubans clearly consider Radio Marti 
to be the most authoritative source of news and information in Cuba'' 
(this is from a USIA in-country assessment on Cuba broadcasting; see 
Appendix I of the report).
  Second, Cuban Government officials and elites regularly listen to 
Radio Marti and tune in to TV Marti.
  Third, TV Marti can be an instrumental means for the United States to 
communicate with the Cuban people during a transition in Cuba.
  Fourth, South Florida will be immediately affected by change in Cuba 
and so eventually will other locations in the U.S. State Department 
contingency plans envision a major role for Radio and TV Marti during a 
transition. Moreover, eivdence suggests that in times of severe crisis, 
people turn first to TV.
  Fifth, were TV Marti terminated, it would be very expensive and take 
several months to initiate a new TV service during the transition. So, 
this amendment is not the cost-cutter its proponents claim.
  Sixth, America has never responded to a recipient country's jamming 
of U.S. Government broadcasts by giving in to a dictators' wishes that 
those broadcasting services be terminated. But that is precisely what 
this amendment would have us do. America should not 

[[Page H7781]]
succumb for the first time in history in the case of Cuba. Radio Free 
Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Marti all overcame jamming; so should 
and can TV Marti.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  My colleagues, it is first important to establish what this amendment 
is not about. The amendment would eliminate $180,000 in spending for 
the board of Marti. But, in truth, it has nothing to do with money. You 
see, the Federal Government has hundreds of boards for all kinds of 
different radio stations and operations. None of their money would be 
affected. Just this one. it affects Cuban Americans and broadcast into 
Cuba. It is not about money, it is about ideology, anything to 
undermine the fact that this radio station for these people is getting 
into Cuba to tell the truth.
  You have been told that there is an I.G. report that is critical of 
the board. Let me tell you what you were not told, that Mr. Duffy, head 
of USIA, has called its release unauthorized, inappropriate. He has 
called for an ethics probe, said it does not reflect a genuine analysis 
of the situation. Indeed the President has had his own ethics board 
involved. It is potentially a criminal release of a one-sided analysis 
done for purely partisan and ideological purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress has debated this issue year in and year 
out, and last year we called a truce. We asked that the USIA do a 
nonpartisan, objective analysis, and they did. They found this radio 
station effective, important for the United States Government 
interests, representing the views of this country, helpful in the 
process of getting the truth to the Cuba people.
  They could not win on the merits. The study did not have what they 
wanted as a conclusion. So now, one way or another, there is an attempt 
to undermine Radio Marti.
  This station is important for the foreign policy of this country. 
Reject this amendment. Keep the board and the radio station in place.
  (Mr. SKAGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] that would eliminate this 
corrupted and unnecessary board.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that the outside board appointed to 
advise USIA on broadcasting to Cuba has been used as the tool for some 
elements of the Cuban-American community to exert undue and even 
improper political influence over the content of USIA news programs. On 
this point, please read the following article from the New York Times:
                [From the New York Times, July 23, 1995]

        Cuban-America Has Meddled In Radio Marti, Officials Say

                         (By Steven Greenhouse)

       A Federal investigation into Radio Marti--a Government-
     financed station that broadcasts to Cuba--has found that the 
     Cuban-American leader Jorge Mas Canosa improperly interfered 
     with its operations, slanting its news coverage and 
     influencing personnel decisions, officials familiar with the 
     report said.
       The report, prepared by the Inspector General of the United 
     States Information Agency, details how Mr. Mas has 
     systematically interfered in Radio Marti's day-to-day 
     operations and concludes that the radio station has 
     improperly retaliated against employees who protested such 
     manipulation, the officials said.
       Administration officials said Mr. Mas, as chairman of Radio 
     Marti's advisory board, is supposed to provide general advice 
     to the White House about Radio Marti and Television Marti, 
     which are Federally financed networks broadcasting to Cuba, 
     but he is not supposed to meddle in personnel decisions or 
     day-to-day operations.
       The Inspector General began preparing the report months ago 
     after a senior Radio Marti news analyst complained that the 
     network's management was seeking to dismiss him after he 
     protested that the station's news director was trying to 
     censor his analysis and was broadcasting biased news 
     coverage.
       Mr. Mas broke with the Clinton Administration in May after 
     its decision to return Cuban boat people, but Administration 
     officials insist that the Inspector General's report is in no 
     way a response to that rupture.
       In recent months, State Department officials and Joseph 
     Duffey, director of the United States Information Agency, 
     which is the parent organization of the networks, have 
     accused Radio Marti of inaccurate reporting and of advancing 
     Mr. Mas's political agenda while attacking Administration 
     policy.
       For example, Joseph Sullivan, chief of the United States 
     Interests Section in Havana, sent a classified cable to the 
     State Department in May complaining that Radio Marti's news 
     coverage repeatedly attacked President Clinton's new 
     immigration policy toward Cuba while trumpeting Mr. Mas's 
     opposition to it.
       Mr. Mas's defenders say the report, which was described by 
     The Washington Post yesterday, is an effort by his enemies to 
     pillory Mr. Mas, who as chairman of the Cuban American 
     National Foundation is widely viewed as the nation's most 
     powerful Cuban American.
       ``This is all part of a very long-standing campaign of 
     political harassment of the office of Cuba Broadcasting,'' 
     the agency that oversees Radio Marti and Television Marti, 
     said Jose Cardenas, director of the Washington office of the 
     Cuban American National Foundation. ``Jorge Mas has many 
     political enemies in this town who may have latched onto to 
     this device to take a chunk out of his hide.''
       Mr. Cardenas said Mr. Mas was not available for interviews 
     because he was traveling.
       Marian Bennett, the Inspector General, refused to comment 
     on the report's details, except to confirm that her office 
     was investigating allegations of mismanagement, fraud and 
     abuse at Radio Marti and Television Marti. She said she 
     expected the report to be released in several weeks although 
     an interim copy of the report was shown to several members of 
     Congress.
       Representative David Skaggs, a Colorado Democrat who saw 
     the interim report, refused to discuss its details, but 
     suggested that it heavily criticized Mr. Mas.
       ``Radio Marti has been subject to the manipulation and 
     corruption by Jorge Mas Canosa,'' Mr. Skaggs said in an 
     interview. ``He has had an undue and unlawful effect on an 
     agency of the United States for serving his political ends.''
       Officials said the State Department and the Information 
     Agency were particularly upset in January when Radio Marti--
     at Mr. Mas's instigation--broadcast that the Administration 
     was near an agreement to allow Cuban refugees being detained 
     in Panama and at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. The 
     officials said Mr. Mas knew that this was not true but 
     arranged the broadcast to put pressure on the Administration 
     to admit the refugees.
       As evidence of Radio Marti's bias in favor of Mr. Mas's 
     views, J. Richard Planas, the senior research analyst who 
     Radio Marti sought to dismiss, said a study he prepared 
     showed that Radio Marti broadcast 280 stories in favor of a 
     bill to tighten the embargo against Cuba and only 70 stories 
     against the bill, which Mr. Mas strongly backed.
       In an interview Jay Mailin, a former news director at Radio 
     Marti, said Mr. Mas had used the station to beam as much news 
     as possible about him to further what are widely seen as his 
     ambitions to be president in a post-Castro Cuba.
       Two Radio Marti employees said in interviews that Agustine 
     Alles, who had been the station's news director until he was 
     transferred to Miami last month, often interrupted daily news 
     meetings to take calls from Mr. Mas and then returned to 
     report Mr. Mas's preferences in daily coverage.
       ``Alles thought his job was to make sure that the station 
     reported on Mas 10, 20, 30 times a day,'' said Mr. Mallin, 
     who said he was forced out as news director after criticizing 
     the station's overall director. ``Alles spoke on the phone 
     continuously to Jorge Mas.''

  Mr. SKAGGS. So, while I support USIA's efforts to provide vital, 
unbiased news, I am convinced that it makes no sense to continue 
throwing good money into the unnecessary operation of the Advisory 
Board for Radio Marti.
  Especially as we are reducing spending for important programs that 
benefit people in the United States, we need to stop wasteful foreign-
affairs spending that does not advance our foreign policy and that uses 
tax dollars to subsidize political activities here at home. Vote for 
Mr. Serrano's amendment.
  We already have a USIA Board which supervises all international 
broadcasting and is perfectly capable of providing advice regarding 
Radio Marti, as well. A separate board for Cuban broadcasting is 
duplicative, which is bad enough. But it has also become the platform 
from which Mas Canosa as chairman has consistently exerted improper 
influence on station personnel and on the content of station 
broadcasting. He forced distorted news coverage by Radio Marti during 
critical periods earlier this year in which immigration policy was at 
an extremely delicate point, effectively trying to subvert official 
U.S. Government policy. He has, in short, corrupted the advisory board 
and the operations of Radio Marti. He is in a shameless conflict of 
interest given his other life as president of a special interest Cuban-
American political organization. The best medicine is to rid USIA of 
the advisory board and, in the process, make good riddance of Mas 
Canosa.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. 

[[Page H7782]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Serrano] will be postponed.


               amendment offered by mrs. meyers of kansas

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
demand for a recorded vote on the Meyers amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how did the 
Chair announce that vote on the voice vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The ayes had it.
  Mr. WICKER. That the ayes had it?
  The CHAIRMAN. On the Meyers amendment, yes.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection 
reluctantly.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, what was 
the request that was made again?
  Mr. FORBES. I requested unanimous consent to withdraw my request for 
a recorded vote.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Further reserving the right to object, if this is an 
issue that will be settled, but if there is going to be an attempt made 
in conference or something or some other time in the future, I think 
that at some point in time there will not be.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  So, the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I shall not take the full 5 minutes, because I think we have 
completed the amending process.
  But let me quickly do two things: First, we would like to note a 
correction in the report on page 31 under INS construction, $5 million 
has been provided for the INS detention center in the western region of 
New York instead of the northeast region, as currently stated in the 
report.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word of thanks for those who 
participated in this debate today. It has been a long day. We have done 
well. We have disposed of a lot of amendments. We have a good bill.
  We urge its adoption.
  Let me thank the members of the staff who have worked so long and 
hard on this bill, and you see them and you have watched them work 
today. We want to thank them. We want to thank the members of the 
subcommittee, especially my ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has been a real soldier on this bill.
  We urge its adoption.
  Let me thank the members of the staff who have worked so long and 
hard on this bill, and you see them and you have watched them work 
today. We want to thank them. We want to thank the members of the 
subcommittee, especially my ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has been a real soldier on this bill.
  We urge its adoption. We thank the Members for their help.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes.
  I want to echo the sentiments of our chairman. We appreciate the hard 
work of all the members of the committee and the patience of the 
Members here today.
  We urge passage of the bill upon disposition of the amendment.
  We want particularly to thank the efforts of the chairman who has 
worked long and hard here today, and we appreciate the indulgence of 
all Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will complete the reading of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

                              {time}  2145


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:

       Amendment No. 5, offered by Mr. Mollohan of West Virginia; 
     an unprinted amendment, offered by Mr. Engel of New York; an 
     unprinted amendment, offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey to 
     the Skaggs amendment; the underlying amendment, offered by 
     Mr. Skaggs of Colorado and amendment No. 37, offered by Mr. 
     Serrano of New York.

  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
                amendment no. 5 offered by mr. mollohan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  This will be a 17-minute vote. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on each additional amendment on which the Chair has 
postponed further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 223, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 580]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--223

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer

[[Page H7783]]

     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  2204

  Mr. EWING and Mr. COOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BEVILL, GILMAN, and DOOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. engel

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 234, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 581]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                               NOES--234

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baesler
     Bateman
     Boehner
     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Hunter
     Linder
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  2210

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Dingell for, with Mr. Hunter against.

  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  so the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
 amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey to the amendment offered 
                             by mr. skaggs

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H7784]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285, 
noes 139, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 582]

                               AYES--285

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     LaFalce
     Matsui
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Reynolds

                              {time}  2217

  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________