[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8254-H8293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3814.
{time} 1023
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3814) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Gunderson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday,
July 23, 1996, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Miller] had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from
page 49, line 3, through page 116, line 5.
Are there further amendments made in order by the order of the House
of Tuesday, July 23, 1996?
amendment offered by mr. rogers
Mr. ROGERS. 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. Rogers:
On page 55, line 22, strike ``$66,000,000'' and insert in
lieu therof ``$68,000,000''.
On page 56, line 4, strike ``$1,837,176,000'' and insert in
lieu therof ``$1,839,176,000''.
On page 56, line 6, strike ``$71,276,000'' and insert in
lieu therof ``$73,276,000''.
On page 56, line 10, strike ``$292,907,000'' and insert in
lieu therof ``$298,907,000''.
On page 56, line 13, strike ``$429,897,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$425,897,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I am offering
this amendment to address concerns raised by some coastal Members on
both sides of the aisle. The amendment would make some minor internal
shifts within NOAA in order to restore funding for endangered species
recovery programs, primarily for salmon recovery in the Pacific
Northwest.
Funding for these activities would be offset from within NOAA. It
would cost no extra money. I know of no objections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. It will ensure
adequate funding for two of NOAA's programs that are critical to our
coastal ecosystems and to the fishing industry. It is an amendment
which will help the endangered species and, indeed, endangered
fishermen and endangered coastal communities.
It will restore to the fiscal year 1996 level the endangered species
recovery programs. These are NOAA programs. When a species is listed,
the recovery is in place.
As many as 16 million salmon once made it up the Columbia River, and
they were just a basis of our economy. But as recently as 1988 those
species began to diminish. The recovery plans will mean that our
environmental protection will be in place for those species, and it
will also help us recover nearly 50,000 jobs that have been lost.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by Oregon's Governor, by
the commercial and sports fishing industry, and it is also supported by
those who represent several billion dollars in annual economic activity
and more than 100,000 family wage jobs.
This is a vote for the environment. It is a vote for America's
fishing men and women. It is a vote in favor of recreational fishing
and critical tourism dollars. It is a small investment, but it will
have an enormous benefit for working Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I want very much to thank the gentleman from Kentucky,
Chairman Rogers, and the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan,
the ranking member for working on this amendment, for bringing it
forward. I believe that it is a great amendment. I thank you for
looking out for our fishing men and women and our coastal communities,
and I really support this amendment. I thank the Members for all their
fine work on it.
Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, congratulations to the gentlewoman.
She has been a real stalwart supporter of this cause. We congratulate
her on this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition, no other speakers. I urge
adoption of the amendment.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend
Chairman Rogers for his very responsible amendment to increase funding
for the NOAA Operations, Research and Facilities account.
I am hopeful that some of these funds will be used to augment one of
most important programs in this appropriations bill, the Mitchell Act
hatcheries. For decades the Federal Government has financed a hatchery
program to compensate for the loss of salmon due to hydroelectric
projects on the Columbia River. These facilities supported by the so-
called Mitchell Act are critical to the maintenance of the region's
multi-million dollar commercial and sports fishing industries.
The funding in this bill for Mitchell Act hatcheries was initially
less than we need to maintain this vital program. However, I am pleased
that Chairman Rogers has agreed to increase the funds for NOAA
activities so that the agency has more flexibility to fund the Mitchell
Act hatcheries at a level that ensures a viable fishery in the
Northwest.
While I am a strong proponent of balancing the budget, I believe that
deep cuts in the Mitchell Act program will actually create more
economic hardship for the already depressed fishing industry. I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that we
pass a bill that keeps our commitment to the people of the Northwest.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. allard
Mr. ALLARD. 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. Allard:
Page 58, strike lines 18 through 23 (relating to the Under
Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology
Policy).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
[[Page H8255]]
Allard] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from Kentucky and the
Appropriations Committee for their diligence and commitment to reducing
government spending. However, we must not pass up an opportunity to
eliminate a needless layer of bureaucracy and an unauthorized
appropriation of $5 million for the Commerce Department's Under
Secretary for Technology.
Both the Authorization Committee and the Budget Committee have now
recommended that the Under Secretary for Technology be terminated. The
Budget Committee has accurately labeled this a redundant bureaucracy.
Mr. Chairman, we are never going to balance this budget unless we
stop funding unauthorized and redundant programs.
This amendment is supported by the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the
National Taxpayers Union, and the Citizens Against Government Waste. In
fact, Citizens Against Government Waste will be including this vote in
its deficit reduction vote rating.
Last year, this amendment nearly passed. This year there is no reason
for it not to pass. When I offered the amendment in 1995, opponents
argued that the appropriations bill was the wrong vehicle to make these
changes and that the authorizing process would be the proper place to
review this issue. Well, the authorization process has been completed,
and this office was not reauthorized by the Science Committee in H.R.
3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, approved by the
House on May 30, 1996.
Not one Member voted for funding this office in the authorization
legislation when it passed the House. If the Appropriations Committee
is against this amendment, then I ask why you were not fighting for
this office on the House floor on May 30.
By the Department of Commerce's own description, the Technology
Administration leads the Department's advanced civilian technology
strategy. We do not need a central command and control office to direct
the private sector's commercialization of technology. This industrial
policy office is especially no longer needed in light of Chairman
Rogers' amendment earlier to close out the Advanced Technology Program.
The Under Secretary for Technology is nothing more than another layer
of bureaucracy. It is time to end this needless bureaucracy. The
Federal Government should not be attempting to pick winners and losers
in the area of technology, the marketplace can do this quite well. Let
us follow through on our commitment to end corporate subsidies and
excess government regulation. I do not believe Microsoft or Netscape or
any other technology company needs another bureaucrat to keep them
competitive.
If Congress is determined to spend this $5 million, or a portion
thereof, it would certainly be preferable to spend it directly on
research programs, rather than on a 47-person Federal bureaucracy.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and end
this unauthorized $5 million appropriation.
{time} 1030
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment to eliminate funding for the Technology Administration.
The world is changing, Mr. Chairman, and technology is the driving
force. Technology is changing the way we work, the way we live, and the
way we compete in the world.
If the United States is to maintain world economic leadership into
the 21st century, we must respond quickly and precisely to these
economic changes. The Technology Administration is the engine behind
this critical effort. I do not know of any public servant who is more
capable, more dedicated, more effective in the performance of her
responsibilities than Under Secretary for Technology, Dr. Mary Good.
The Technology Administration serves as an advocate for American
industries, ensuring that government policies, government programs and
regulations promote U.S. competitiveness. Additionally, the Technology
Administration is the only Federal agency that analyzes the civilian
technology activities of our foreign competitors, working to promote
and protect the U.S. technology interests in global research and
development efforts.
While eliminating the Technology Administration will only have a
negligible impact on the budget deficit, it will deprive U.S. industry
of an effective advocate for technology innovation at a time of
intensifying global competition. In fact, eliminating the Technology
Administration in the heat of today's battle for global markets is like
eliminating the Department of Defense at the height of the cold war.
In an era where U.S. economic prosperity will largely be determined
on our ability to develop and commercialize new technology, we cannot
afford to eliminate this important advocate for American industry.
To this end, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and many
others in this body in protecting U.S. interests, U.S. jobs, and
economic growth by voting against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me make a few comments in response to the gentleman's comments
from West Virginia.
First of all, we are just eliminating an unnecessary bureaucracy. We
have had an opportunity to reauthorize this Under Secretary position
and the Congress refused to do that. So we are not talking about
reducing the ability for us to compete on the international market.
These functions are already performed and can easily be performed by
the International Trade Administration. Under the ITA there is a Trade
Advocacy, Trade Law Enforcement, Trade Development, an International
Economic Policy, and U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service offices.
Wayne Berman, a former Assistant Secretary and Counselor to the
Secretary of Commerce Department, asserted that the Technology
Department should be terminated immediately. He assured the committee
no harm would come to the core programs under the Commerce Department's
jurisdiction, and in fact the agencies would probably perform its core
functions better at less cost.
As I pointed out last year, the Department of Commerce seems
particularly bureaucratic. Below the Secretary level there is a Deputy
Secretary, an Under Secretary and Administrator, an Under Secretary for
International Trade, an Under Secretary for Export Administration, an
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, an Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator, an Assistant Secretary for
International Economic Policy, an Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, an Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, an
Assistant Secretary and Director General for the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service, and the bureaucracy goes on and on and on.
I just think that this should be an easy vote for Members of the
House. This is an unauthorized program. We should not continue to fund
programs that are redundant in nature, continue to fund programs that
are unauthorized. If we want to balance the budget, this is one place
that we ought to address that concern. It is something that needs to be
done for the future of our children and grandchildren. It is one small
step for their future.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan] for the excellent job that he has done in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this may be one of the more shortsighted amendments
that we address in the Congress this year,
[[Page H8256]]
unfortunately. In fact, it may be the most shortsighted amendment.
As the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] said in his
comments, in a time of global competition the Technology Administration
is the one place in the Federal Government where the Government is an
ally, not an enemy of business.
The Technology Administration acts as a focal point for all industry
concerns, both foreign and domestic, such as monitoring the activities
of foreign firms and their parent governments, the unintended
consequences of legislation and regulations that emanate from here and,
as I said, a rapidly changing global economy.
This place in our Government is the one place where industry and
American business has an ally. It is an advocate for industry in our
country at a time when businesses need help to meet this worldwide
competition. A recent report by the Council on Competitiveness and a
position statement by the Industrial Research Institute urge our
Government to work more closely with industry and to strengthen
existing ties. This amendment is a step backward from that, the very
essence of what we are trying to do in terms of an ally of our American
businesses.
It manages and oversees the very things that make our businesses
competitive, or helps make them so, and in a time when the short-term
marketplace, and the pressures there, is squeezing the ability of
American firms to do necessary long-term high-risk research and
development, this is the one thing we need to do as a nation.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
thought there was someone on the majority side that wanted to speak and
I was going to yield them time, but they have not arrived.
I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying I think this is a very ill-
advised amendment. The Commerce Department generally, and Dr. Good's
office specifically, is the headquarters for strategic thinking about
how we deal with the new economic challenges facing this Nation.
The gentleman from Colorado talked a lot about trade, and that is
certainly a dimension to the strategic effort; however, Dr. Good does
not focus on trade advocacy. Dr. Good focuses on technology development
advocacy, identifying core areas where the United States has to be
particularly competent if we are going to be particularly competitive
into the future.
Again, I urge opposition to this very unwise amendment, and hope that
the body will defeat it.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this week is the first
anniversary of the House of Representatives' last rejection of an
amendment by Congressman Allard to strike all funding for the
Technology Administration from a Commerce, Justice, State, and the
judiciary appropriations bill. The reasons for rejecting this amendment
are just as valid today as they were then. I urge my colleagues once
again reject this short-sighted amendment.
The vote is a rather hollow, symbolic gesture to cut Government
spending. The Technology Administration costs taxpayers 2 to 3 cents
each per year. Any savings, by the time we finish the appropriations
process, will be spent on something else. Alternatively, they will be
lost in the rounding error when computing next year's deficit.
The program is hardly corporate welfare either. Most of the funds pay
for the Office of Technology Policy of the Department of Commerce,
which from the Reagan administration onward has been a tiny, but strong
advocate for the private sector. Over the years this office has
successfully advocated antitrust reform, a pro-industry Federal patent
policy, a technology transfer policy that makes sure the results of
Federal research are readily available to U.S. companies, and for
making sure that the needs of U.S. manufacturers, especially small
businessmen who manufacture goods, and a U.S. trade policy that is
sensitive to the needs of U.S. manufacturers. I expect that the
millions spent on this office over the years have brought returns in
the hundreds of millions if not billions to private sector companies
who have benefited from the policy changes the office has advocated.
Someone in the Government needs to be an advocate for American
technology-based industry, and the Technology Administration has been
unrelenting in its support of U.S. business in economic, trade, tax,
and regulatory matters. In each successive administration, successful
business men and women have joined the Technology Administration to
spend a few years providing a fresh private sector perspective within
the Government. They have kept an eye on foreign competitors to help
ensure that U.S. firms are not handicapped in the global marketplace.
They have done much of the interagency coordination related to
technology. If the Technology Administration did not exist, and we
wished to be effective and competitive in world commerce, we would have
to create it.
Therefore, please join me in striking a blow for U.S. manufacturers
and U.S. competitiveness and once again vote to defeat an Allard
amendment to strike Technology Administration funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]
will be postponed.
Does any Member seek recognition?
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] and the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote.
amendment offered by mr. goss
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goss:
Page 48, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $98,550,000)''.
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 113,
noes 301, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 346]
AYES--113
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Brownback
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Chabot
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ensign
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Goss
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
Klug
Kolbe
Largent
Laughlin
Leach
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Smith (MI)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walker
Weller
White
Wolf
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--301
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
[[Page H8257]]
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--19
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Crane
Flake
Hinchey
Horn
Lincoln
McDade
Menendez
Molinari
Morella
Nadler
Peterson (FL)
Riggs
Vucanovich
Weldon (PA)
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1100
Mr. ROTH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. FOWLER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 346, I could not be present
to vote due to an unavoidable conflict. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. allard
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by 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.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 229, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--183
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Rogers
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--21
Barr
Collins (IL)
Crane
Flake
Horn
Hunter
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
McDade
[[Page H8258]]
McInnis
Menendez
Molinari
Morella
Nadler
Peterson (FL)
Riggs
Vucanovich
Weldon (PA)
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1109
Messrs. CALVERT, DeLAY, ROBERTS, HUTCHINSON, DICKEY, and BARRETT of
Wisconsin changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I could not be present
to vote due to other business. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
amendment offered by mrs. fowler
Mrs. FOWLER. 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. Fowler: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act for
Part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 shall be made available to an entity that
is eligible to receive funds under such part when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that the application for funds by such an
entity proposes to expend funds for a purpose other than to
prevent crimes against persons or private property.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] will be recognized for
5 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to my colleagues'
attention some concerns I have about grants which have been offered
under the COPS Program. Several grants recently awarded by the
Department of Justice under the COPS Program have made me concerned
that the Justice Department is more interested in the number of police
they fund as opposed to where the police go and how they are used.
On July 2 the Department of Justice awarded the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection a $3.5 million COPS grant. When I learned of
the grant I was curious to know how the funds would be used so I wrote
to the Justice Department seeking an explanation for the grant. I have
not received a response from the Justice Department; however, in an
article which recently appeared in Investors Business Daily, a
representative of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
claimed that the $3.5 million grant would be used to protect the coral
sanctuary. In fact he explained, and this is a quote, that instead of
our program being in a city's neighborhood, our neighborhood is marine
environment itself.
Now while I wholeheartedly support conservation efforts and
protecting natural resources, I personally do not consider patrolling a
coral sanctuary to be community-oriented policing.
{time} 1115
Frankly, I do not believe that the Justice Department knows how this
grant is being used. In view of both the fact that these grants are
supposed to be using taxpayers' money to protect taxpayers in their
communities and the fact that there is other funding available for law
enforcement and enforcement of environmental rules in parks and
sanctuaries, I am concerned about the criteria used in awarding these
COPS grants.
My hope is that we can work together to insert language into the
conference report on this legislation to make the Justice Department
aware of these concerns and indicate that Congress is not only
interested in how many police are hired but how and where they are
being used.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
raising this issue. Obviously, I agree that we need to make sure that
the funds awarded under the COPS grant program by the administration
are in fact being used for fighting crime in our communities. I do not
know of any coral reefs that they are guarding. I do not know that we
have a problem with crime in the coral reefs.
There are legitimate sources of Federal funds for protecting a coral
sanctuary, but I do not believe that the Congress intended that the
COPS Program be one of them.
Further, I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman to develop
report language with would help to resolve these concerns, and I
congratulate her for bringing this matter to our attention.
Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the gentleman. I know the chairman of the
subcommittee has worked very hard to make sure we maintain our crime
efforts, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that the
Justice Department uses these funds properly.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following article from
Investor's Business Daily.
The article referred to is as follows:
[From the Investor's Business Daily, Los Angeles, CA, July 16, 1996]
Clinton's Cops: A Shell Game?
(By Adrienne Fox)
In his 1994 State of the Union Address, President Clinton
pledge to put 100,000 more police officers on America's
streets. That speech spawned the Community Oriented Policing
Services, and has become one of Clinton's pet anti-crime
success stories.
But the number of new police on the street falls way short
of that lofty goal, and a significant number are patrolling
parks and marine sanctuaries, not tough inner city streets or
even suburban enclaves.
Investor's Business Daily has obtained documents showing
the Clinton Justice Department is awarding a portion of the
COPS funding to state parks and EPA officers--not to prevent
violent crime.
At least $7.2 million in COPS grants has been used to hire
86 officers for state parks, marinas and other areas
seemingly far removed from violent crime. Moreover, though
Justice, and later Clinton, claimed some 43,000 new cops had
been put on the streets by the program, Attorney General
Janet Reno has since publicly cut that number to 17,000.
This wasn't the way it was supposed to happen.
``During the presidential campaign,'' Clinton said in the
'94 State of the Union message, ``I promised the American
people that I would cut 100,000 federal bureaucrats in
Washington and use those savings to put 100,000 new police
officers on America's streets.''
Later in 1994, Congress approved $8.8 billion over the next
six years for the COPS program.
And in '95, Clinton hailed the program in a radio address,
``Police departments all around the country are putting this
effort to work, hiring, training, and deploying officers as
fast as we can give a go-ahead,'' he said.
Even though the number of officers hired for the
questionable jobs is small, it raises questions about the
program among elected officials who approved the funding. The
list reads more like an Interior Department or Environmental
Protection Agency budget than a Justice crime-fighting
program.
In Florida, 30 ``enviro-cops'' were added to the state
Department of Environmental Protection to keep watch over a
coral sanctuary off the Florida Keys. The cost $3.5 million.
``(The cops) would be law enforcement officers to cover the
new Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,'' said Maj.
Kenneth Willoughby of the Florida DEP. ``These officers would
help patrol and protect these areas.''
Florida also received a $1.8 million grant to hire 25 cops
for its state parks.
Both grants were approved by and paid out of the COPS
program, which covers 75% of the cost of each officer up to
$75,000 annually for three years.
When Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla., first learned of the
Florida DEP award, she wrote to Reno asking her to explain
the grant.
``The Florida EPA grant appears to be completely
inconsistent with the intent of the program, which is to put
more police on the streets to protect our communities,''
Fowler wrote.
Her colleague, Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., agrees
environmental police are not what Congress envisioned when it
passed the program. He heads the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, which oversees the grants.
``Nobody debated that,'' McCollum said, ``I can guarantee
you there's not a single person in the U.S. House who would
have thought that it was going toward the purpose of anything
other than a street cop.''
McCollum said that when Clinton gives stump speeches on how
he's putting ```100,000 cops on the streets,'' most people
picture a cop walking the beat in a crime-infested area.
``This is just one further sign of how much this
administration wants to puff and exaggerate the success of
this program,'' McCollum said.
At the same time the Florida DEP received its $3.5 million
grant, Justice rejected a request from the St. Augustine
Police Department in northern Florida to fund a one-year
anti-domestic violence program.
The program would have cost $80,000 to hire one officer.
[[Page H8259]]
``It was to help build partnerships so that hopefully after
the year, we could continue it,'' said St. Augustine Police
Chief Bill Robinson. ``I guess we were in competition with
other departments out there wanting money for domestic
violence. And we weren't selected.''
His response to the $3.5 million DEP grant was one of
disbelief. ``Thirty people to go watch some coral? I'm not
sure that's what people are afraid of in our communities.''
Six months ago, Donald Coventry, chief of the park police
in Decatur, Ill., won a $71,300 grant from the COPS program.
He will use the money the way Congress intended--to teach
youths about the dangers of drugs.
When told that some of the money is not being used to
prevent violent crime, the 30-year police veteran said, ``Cut
them off, and send me my check. It amazes me how these people
get their hands on this money.''
The Murfreesboro. Tenn., Parks and Recreation Department
got its hands on a $281,159 grant from Justice to hire five
park rangers.
``They will not only be public information officers,''
explained Lanny Goodwin, deputy director of the park
department. ``But they will also have the policing powers to
enforce the rules and regulations of the parks.''
Those rules forbid drinking and overnight camping and make
certain parking restrictions.
The Texas city of Shavano won a similar grant for $275,865
to add five park police.
And the Maryland Natural Resource Police received two
grants totaling $1 million from the Justice Department's Web
site as ``a number of grant initiatives to put more officers
on America's streets and promote community policing
strategies.''
Local agencies are supposed to be awarded grants if the
money will be used for community policing. Other programs
funded include problem-solving programs, anti-gang efforts,
equipment and overtime budgets, combating youth violence and
training retiring soldiers to become cops.
But, according to the data, that's not what happens,
Charles Miller, spokesman for the COPS program, said as long
as an agency hires law enforcement officers who have gone
through a police academy and the budget meets COPS'
guidelines the grant is approved.
He also said the guidelines don't include whether there has
been a history of violent crime in an area to be covered or
whether people even reside there.
There's no question that violent crimes are committed in
state and national parks. But have they reached a crisis? In
some cases yes, and in some cases no,'' Miller responded.
``The mandate we have received is to fund additional
officers. And those jurisdictions are qualified if they hire
sworn officers.''
But hasn't Clinton said repeatedly that the COPS program is
to combat violent crime! ``No. Well, there is violent crime
in parks,'' Miller stressed. ``But the whole point of this
(program) was to add 100,000 police to the nation's streets
and to have them involved in community policing.''
The dictionary definition of community is being stretched
beyond the standard ``unified body of persons.''
For instance, the COPS office believes the coral reef off
the Florida Keys is a community--even though it's marine
life. ``But it's very unique.'' Florida DEP's Willoughby
explained.
``Instead of our program being in a city's neighborhood,
our neighborhood is the marine environment itself,'' he
added.
The Justice Department points out that the bulk of the
funding is going to cities and police departments.
Justice also said Congress is aware of all the grants
approved and how the money is being awarded. The COPS
application form, for instance, asks the local agency to
check areas of priority. Two of the areas listed are
agriculture crime and wildlife crime.
But Rep. McCollum and Coventry, Decatur's park police
chief, agreed there are higher priorities.
``With the task we have before us, law enforcement should
not be abusing one red cent of federal money to help fight
crime,'' Conventry said.
McCollum said, ``Unless there truly is a law enforcement
nexus that is real, this is just a sham.''
McCollum adds that while there may be a real need for more
environmental policing, it should not come out of the COPS
budget.
The House Subcommittee on Crime is starting an
investigation into the COPS grants, McCollum suggested he
might craft a bill setting limits on how the money can be
spent.
Cops On the Beat--How Some U.S. Law Enforcement Grants Were Used
Amount
Florida:
National Marine Sanctuary................................$3,500,000
Park patrol...............................................2,800,000
Illinois: Water reclamation.....................................150,000
Maryland: Natural resources...................................1,000,000
Tennessee: Murfreesboro parks and recreations...................281,159
Texas: Shavano park police......................................275,865
Source: Justice Department.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the COPS Program.
I want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, who has
brought this forward. Many times we get some erroneous information from
the paper, and we want to clear this up. We want to be sure that
everybody understands that Florida is not Baywatch.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
A question to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown], if we can
enter into a little dialog, and even with the gentlewoman from Florida
[Mrs. Fowler] as well; that the article that she cites, after followup
with the agencies involved in Florida, provides some factually
inaccurate information. I would ask, would she believe, but I think it
is pretty self-evident, some of the statements, they were talking
about, that in fact the money they went to Florida under the COPS
Program was not for coral reefs watching; but some of the marine patrol
organizations were in fact marine patrols offshore, catching drug
dealers offshore. Even though they might be in boats and it might seem
like a little more fun than walking the beat of an inner city, it is as
dangerous and as important for law enforcement as those innercity cops
that are doing that.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I want to submit my statement for the Record,
Mr. Chairman. But I want to point out that the Florida department of
environment protection officers seized more cocaine last year than the
U.S. Customs. This year the Florida State law enforcement officer of
the year was a marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting
outside of Miami.
The COPS Program is an excellent program for Florida. We received
over 200 cops, and in fact a child was killed in a campsite in a
Florida park in 1993 before the COPS Program. In light of some of the
other incidents going on around the country, I would suggest that we do
not cut this program and in any way prohibit the States from having
park police or marine patrol participate in the program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest opposition to any attempt
to cut COPS awards from park police or marine patrols. I am outraged
that Members, some from my State of Florida, have erroneously
criticized the award of COPS funds to park police in general and
specifically to the Florida Marine Patrol. I am disappointed that a
Member of this House would complain about a grant award that benefits
their State and their constituents--that provides badly needed
assistance that officials in that State have told the Federal
Government they need.
Claims that grants to Park Police are not appropriate uses of Federal
crime fighting funds are absurd. Park Police provide important
protection and crime prevention in our Nation's parks and waterways.
This is critical for my State of Florida.
Scores of Florida law enforcement agencies have already applied for,
and been awarded, badly needed crime fighting resources through the
COPS Program. Thus far, the Third Congressional District has received
almost 200 additional cops in 23 different communities through the COPS
Programs and crime has gone down as a result.
Park Police and Florida Marine Patrol officers have helped bust drug
dealers in Florida parks. In fact, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection officers seized more cocaine last year than U.S. Customs.
This year's Florida State Law Enforcement Officer of the Year was a
marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting outside Miami.
These important officers are doing more than guarding a coral reef.
They are on duty 24 hours a day. In fact a child was killed at a
campsite in a Florida park in 1993 before the COPS Program was put in
place. In light of the terrible murder earlier this year of two young
women in the Shenandoah Park, it makes no sense to cut back on Park
Police in areas that have acknowledged that they need extra help.
Mr. Chairman, this is a horrible amendment and I urge my colleagues
to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I really
appreciate the Members from Florida raising this issue. I think it
gives us an opportunity to point out that one of the
[[Page H8260]]
really strong aspects of the COPS Program is the wonderful way in which
it has been administered, the expeditious way in which these grants
have been let out across the Nation, getting these cops on the beat,
getting policemen on the beat.
Also, I think the gentlewoman's interest raises a very real strength
with regard to the COPS Program. That it has flexibility, and the
ability to adapt to different environments and provide additional law
enforcement resources to local communities.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not
know the facts of the newspaper account. All I know is I have seen the
newspaper account. If in fact the administration is giving money that
we intended in the Congress to go to fighting crime, COPS on the beat,
as advertised, if they are in fact giving that money to people who are
swimming and guarding the coral reef in Florida, I want to know whether
or not they have a badge on if they swim down there, if they are
fighting crime under the waters of Florida. I doubt that they are. I
suspect that some of this money in the COPS Program is going for this
type of activity, if not this particular one.
Mrs. FOWLER. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the reason I
withdrew the amendment was to give the ranking member and the chairman
the opportunity during the conference to make sure that the language in
our guidelines is appropriate and strong enough to ensure that the
funding for these cops, for these policemen, is going to make our
streets and neighborhoods safer, which was the original intent. I am
assured that he will be working on that in the conference report.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Ms BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest
opposition to any attempt to cut COPS awards from park police or marine
patrols. I am outraged that Members, some from my State of Florida,
have erroneously criticized the award of COPS funds to park police, in
general, and specifically to the Florida Marine Patrol. I am
disappointed that a Member of this House would complain about a grant
award that benefits their State and their constituents--that provides
badly needed assistance that officials in that State have told the
Federal Government they need.
Claims that grants to park police are not appropriate uses of Federal
crime fighting funds are absurd. We are not talking about fictional
``Baywatch lifeguards,'' as one of my colleagues misstated to the
press. These are badge-carrying, sworn officers with full arrest
authority. The officers are on duty 24 hours a day and put their lives
on the line every time they go to work. The underlying fallacy of the
criticism of COPS funds for park police or marine patrols is that there
is no crime in parks. According to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the nature of criminal activity in these
parks is no different than any other community. Unfortunately, murders,
sexual batteries, arson, child abuses, assaults and other heinous
crimes cannot be kept outside of park boundaries. Serial criminals,
escaped convicts, and other dangerous felons often drop out of society
and seek out parks and woodlands as temporary campsites.
Park police provide important protection and crime prevention in our
Nation's parks and waterways. This is critical for my State of Florida
where shore areas make up such a large part of our State and where over
2 million people visit Florida parks each year.
Park police and marine patrol officers are not guarding coral reefs,
as some have erroneously claimed. They are patrolling on bike and on
foot protecting campers, hikers, boaters, and families trying to enjoy
our parks. Scores of Florida law enforcement agencies have already
applied for, and been awarded, badly needed crime fighting resources
through the COPS program. Thus far, the Third Congressional District
has received almost 200 additional cops. State-wide, Florida has
received 2,200 officers through the COPS programs and crime has gone
down as a result.
Park police and Florida Marine Patrol officers have helped bust drug
dealers in Florida parks. In fact, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Officers seized more cocaine in Florida last year than U.S.
Customs. This year's Florida State Law Enforcement Officer of the Year
was a marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting outside
Miami. Just 2 weeks ago, a park officer was hospitalized after
apprehending a violent suspect of domestic violence. In fact, a child
was brutally murdered at a campsite in a Florida park in 1993 before
the COPS program was put in place. In light of the terrible murder
earlier this year of two young women in the Shenandoah Park, it makes
no sense to cut back on park police in areas that have acknowledged
that they need extra help.
Mr. Chairman, this is a horrible amendment and I urge my colleagues
to oppose it. I would also like to include in the Record a letter from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and a news article
from the Tampa Tribune.
Department of
Environmental Protection,
Tallahassee, FL, July 24, 1996.
Hon. Corrine Brown,
Congressional Representative, District 3, U.S. House of
Representatives, Jacksonville, FL.
Dear Congresswoman Brown: Recently, the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has been criticized for
receiving a grant award under the United States Department of
Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
program. Congresswomen Tillie Kidd Fowler, District 4, and
Congressman Bill McCollum, District 8, were quoted in July
16, 1996 Investor's Business Daily article expressing their
displeasure with COPS funding being provided to the FDEP's
Division of Law Enforcement. Particularly disconcerting is
the fact that neither of your Florida Congressional
colleagues contacted our agency to determine the proposed
usage of the funds before making the disparaging comments,
which included comparing our Division of Law Enforcement's
Marine Patrol officers to ``Baywatch lifeguards.'' On the
positive side, it was nice to receive support from your
office and I will attempt to provide a brief explanation of
the function of the FDEP's Division of Law Enforcement and
our intended use of COPS grant dollars.
FDEP's Division of Law Enforcement is comprised of four
bureaus, three of which are the Bureau of Florida Marine
Patrol, the Bureau of Florida Park Patrol, and the Bureau of
Emergency Response. The Bureaus of Marine Patrol and Park
Patrol employ over 450 State of Florida certified sworn law
enforcement officers. These officers are duly constituted
police officers for the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida
State Statutes, Chapter 943, and are authorized to make
arrests for all misdemeanors and felonies occurring within
the State of Florida. The officers of the Marine Patrol and
Park Patrol are represented by the Police Benevolent
Association, the same collective bargaining entity that
represents the Florida Highway Patrol and other state law
enforcement officers.
The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) is Florida's oldest state
law enforcement agency, dating back to 1913. Officers in the
Florida Marine Patrol enforce boating laws, environmental
laws, conservation statutes, and fisheries laws as a primary
duty. Incidentally, these officers are required to enforce
crimes against persons and property, and to provide frontline
enforcement of laws prohibiting the importation of dangerous
drugs into our nation. The Florida Marine Patrol was the
first state law enforcement agency to be deployed to the
Northwest Florida area impacted by Hurricane Opal last year.
FMP officers were summoned due to their advanced training
and specialized equipment available, allowing these
officers to rapidly assist in aiding hurricane survivors,
protecting the barrier island homes from waterborne
looters, and providing general law enforcement for the
citizens and visitors in the affected area. Similarly, in
Congressman McCollum's district, FMP officers are
currently augmenting federal law enforcement authorities
in providing law enforcement for the Orlando soccer venue
for the 1996 Olympic Games. Florida Marine Patrol
officers, like landborne officers, are frequently placed
in danger while making arrests. FMP officers have been
confronted with gunfire, physical attacks, and even
assaults by felons armed with spear guns. The State Law
Enforcement Officer of the Year for 1996 was FMP Officer
Kurt Kaloostian, who engaged in a battle with drug
traffickers outside the waters of Miami, Florida,
eventually arresting both after an extended chase into the
Atlantic Ocean. FMP officers are often the first available
search and rescue asset available to distressed boaters,
waterborne immigrants, and other law enforcement agencies
needing marine assistance.
The Florida Park Patrol is responsible for patrolling over
500,000 acres of State of Florida park properties, greenways,
and trails. With over 145 parks and less than 80 officers to
patrol these facilities, the task at hand is difficult. Over
two million people visit Florida parks each year and the
nature of criminal activity in these parks is no different
than any other community. Unfortunately, murders, sexual
batteries, arson, child abuses, assaults and other heinous
crimes cannot be kept outside park boundaries. Serial
criminals, escaped convicts, and other dangerous felons often
``drop out'' of society and seek out parks and woodlands as
temporary campsites. Professionally trained, well equipped
law enforcement officers are vital to ensure that park
visitors are protected, thus the reason for our initial COPS
grant application.
The COPS funding for the FMP officers assigned to the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has received criticism
from individuals who probably are unaware of the scope of the
law enforcement needs for an
[[Page H8261]]
area the size of the states of Delaware and Rhode Island
combined. To assert that these officers will be ``watching
coral'' is insulting, degrading, and shows a lack of
understanding for the nature of police work in protected
areas. I can assure you that the COPS funds we sought are
destined for quality law enforcement service, to protect the
people and resources of the State of Florida from further
harm.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to explain our duties
and purposes. Your assistance is greatly appreciated by the
many officers who place their lives in harm's way daily to
make the State of Florida a better place.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to call me at (904) 488-5600, extension 76. The Florida
Marine Patrol can be reached 24 hours a day at 1-800-DIAL
FMP.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Miller,
Deputy Director/Field Operations,
Division of Law Enforcement.
____
[From the Tampa Tribune, June 24, 1996]
Marine Patrol Not Laughing at `Baywatch' Joke
(By Gady A. Epstein)
Tallahassee--The state Democratic and Republican party
attack dogs relish in taking jabs at each other's candidates,
but even the GOP chairman admits his operatives went too far
last week.
The Republican Party of Florida's missive last week poked
fun at the Florida Marine Patrol, which received a $3.5
million grant to help hire 30 officers to patrol the Florida
Keys.
The fax criticized President Clinton for spending federal
cash to put cops ``on the beach'' instead of on the street,
and praised the Clinton administration for ``making a dent in
this state's coral reef crime.'' ``We may need to fear a
request for funding more lifeguards for `Baywatch.' '' the
GOP wrote.
The Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees
the marine patrol, was not amused.
``This agency is shocked and we're distressed that the
Florida Republican Party would even suggest that Florida
Marine Patrol officers, who risk their lives every single
day, are even comparable to `Baywatch' lifeguards,'' said
Edie Ousley, DPE spokeswoman.
``Criminals don't discriminate about where they are going
to commit a crime, whether it's in the streets of a downtown
urban area or on the waterway.''
State GOP Chairman Tom Slade acknowledged his party went
too far this time. ``Probably we got a bit carried away with
the press release,'' Slade said Tuesday. ``We certainly
didn't mean to offend them. The target of that press release
was the president, not the Florida Marine Patrol.''
The author of the release was the party's communications
director, Bob Sparks, who Slade said was unavailable Tuesday
afternoon.
``Let me assume full responsibility,'' Slade said. ``I
scanned it before it went out. If I had really read it, I
probably would have doctored it a little bit.''
Ideally, Slade said, the parties should stick closely to
the issues in its press releases, but then the media wouldn't
pay attention. He said the point of the latest release was
that if Clinton was going to hire officers to patrol the
fishing reefs, then he should have said as much.
Ousley said the officers will be ``cross-deputized'' to
enforce federal laws, including narcotics laws, as well as
state laws.
``They're obviously not `Baywatch' lifeguards,'' she said.
``They're real-life cops.''
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis], and I would like to engage our colleague, the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], in a brief colloquy on the status
of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which is funded under this
appropriation. In the 1996 appropriation, Congress directed that the
headquarters of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting be moved from
Washington, DC, to south Florida. That is all the legislation said.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, now the USIA and the International
Broadcasting Bureau are in the process of determining exactly how to
carry out that vague mandate. They have been directed by the White
House to move not just the headquarters but the entire broadcasting
operation, nearly 200 people, and to move them as soon as possible. I
never, never heard of a situation where the law specifies headquarters
but affects the entire organization. This concerns me, as someone whose
constituents are being face with an unwanted move.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned as well
for any constituents, who do not want to move, and for the independent
integrity of the program.
As a member of the Committee on International Relations, which has
jurisdiction over Radio and TV Marti, I am also concerned that before
this language was inserted we had not had any hearings on this subject.
I know this concerns the gentleman from Kentucky, and I would like to
explore the issue very briefly.
The report that accompanies this appropriation directs USIA and the
Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide to the Committee on
Appropriations a report on the employees that are expected to move, the
cost of the move, and the source of funds for the move.
I applaud the committee for requiring this report. Obviously, this
repot has not been completed as yet, and legislation has not been
enacted, and yet people are being asked to pack their bags for Florida
pronto.
My question for the gentleman is this: Does the committee intend for
the Agency to wait until the Agency has completed this report and
submitted it to the committee before it begins carrying out the move? I
know that the chairman would agree that that makes the most sense, to
complete the report before taking any action, both from a management
and a cost point of view.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this
point. It is a valid point, obviously. Certainly it is my intention
that the agency have a very firm grasp of the costs and the numbers and
the source of funds before beginning to put the move into effect.
It is also my intent that this information be submitted to the
committee as soon as it becomes available to the agency's managers. I
do not see how a plan can move forward until there is a plan. So we
would expect to see a plan right away.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that certainly makes a
great deal of sense. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful.
Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is most
reassuring. I thank the chairman as well.
amendment offered by mr. ensign
Mr. ENSIGN. 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. Ensign:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or
make available any commercially published information or
material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that such information or material is sexually explicit or
features nudity.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] will be recognized for 5 minutes,
and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that will end Federal
inmates' access to pornographic material. This commonsense proposal is
long overdue.
My amendment, which is part of a larger crime package I introduced
earlier this month, will prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit
materials and other information to prisoners. Congress should not be
fueling the sexual appetites of offenders, especially those who have
been convicted of despicable sex offenses against women and children.
Magazines that portray and exploit sex acts have no place in the
rehabilitative environment of prison, nor should we pay Bureau of
Prison staff to distribute them.
[[Page H8262]]
The infamous serial killer Ted Bundy, executed several years ago in
Florida's electric chair, stated before his death his belief that
pornographic materials directly contributed to his violent crimes.
While a number of factors determine whether a prisoner will become a
law abiding citizen upon release from prison, cutting prisoners off
from their sexually explicit magazines will certainly do no harm.
Over 100,000 inmates are locked up in Federal prisons around the
country. Each year it costs well over $21,000 to house, feed, clothe,
and provide medical care to each prisoner. This cost will continue to
rise. When taxpayers are footing the bill for their room and board, I
think it is entirely reasonable to expect inmates to conform to
acceptable levels of behavior and civility.
The bill we are considering today contains a $23 million increase in
funding for the Violence Against Women Act. I support this increase and
am glad we were able to dedicate resources to this important program.
However, if we do not adopt my amendment, we are sending the message
that it is OK to provide sexually explicit magazines and books to the
very prisoners who have committed violent acts against women.
Ironically, the House-passed version of the Defense Authorization Act
included a provision which prohibits commissaries on military
installations from selling magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse. It
is reprehensible that this Congress would contemplate denying these
magazines to members of the armed services while distributing them to
Federal prisoners in their daily mail.
I planned on offering a broader amendment which would have also
banned materials which are vulgar, demeaning to women, disrespectful to
law enforcement, and glamorize gang activity. Due to concerns of the
authorizing committee and subcommittee, I narrowed my amendment to
accommodate the Judiciary Committee's comments about the definition of
some of these terms. It is not my intent to create confusing
terminology that will create more demands on the Bureau of Prisons
staff. Nevertheless, I do encourage the authorizing committee and
subcommittee to take a close look at the types of materials prisoners
have access to in the Federal prison system.
I hope all Members can join me in voting for this reasonable effort.
It deserves our collective support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
It is deplorable, Mr. Chairman, to think that America's Federal
prisoners are granted access to vulgar, sexually explicit materials
while serving time in our Federal prisons.
Those predators who prey upon our families deserve to be treated like
they are behind bars, not like they are in an adult book store.
Far too often, those individuals convicted of crimes have the
opportunity, while in prison, to use materials that glamorize the very
acts for which they were convicted.
It's amazing to think that after this House passed the Defense
authorization bill, which banned pornography from our Nation's military
bases, that we would still allow Federal prisoners to use sexually
explicit materials. If restrictions are placed on those men and women
in our Armed Forces, then the same should apply to Federal prisoners.
The time to reform our Federal prisons has come. For too long liberal
judges, slick criminal defense attorneys, and misguided policies have
turned prisons into playhouses. It is time to fix these problems and I
believe that this piece of legislation will help us reach this
attainable goal.
It is time to stop this ridiculous cycle of hypocrisy and end
prisoner's access to sexually explicit materials.
I believe this bill will make sure prisons are punishment, not
playgrounds.
Vote ``yes'' on the Ensign amendment. It's the right thing to do.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]. I thank the gentleman for working
with the authorizing committee to develop the language of the
amendment, and I congratulate him and his other colleagues for
recognizing this as a major accomplishment and achievement.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
[Mr. Ensign].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by Mr. brown of california
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 20.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page
56, line 11, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by
$4,099,000)''.
Page 56, line 12, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $4,099,000)''.
Page 56, beginning at line 12, after ``National Weather
Service,'' insert ``including $429,715,000 for Operations and
Research, Local Warnings and Forecasts''.
Page 56, line 15, after the period add the following: ``No
funds made available under this heading may be used for the
Great Lakes sea lampricide eradication program administered
by the Department of State or the Regional Climate Centers of
the National Weather Service.''.
{time} 1130
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be recognized for
10 minutes and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which I think would
correct a major shortcoming in the bill related to the base operations
for the National Weather Service.
The bill before us reduces the operations and research account of the
National Weather Service by $18 million below current spending levels.
Within this reduction, the bill eliminates all funding for the much-
needed replacement of the radiosonde network and also reduces funding
for the local warnings and forecast activities of the National Weather
Service. These reductions will have very far-reaching negative
consequences that Members should be aware of.
First, the reductions will virtually eliminate the National Weather
Service forecast function in Silver Spring, MD. This vital office
compiles weather data from satellite, radar, and ground observations
and uses this data to run high resolution computer simulations of
weather patterns on NOAA's supercomputers, the kind of weather patterns
that we can see out in the Speaker's lobby broadcast over television.
It is this central forecast model that is, in fact, the basis for the
weather products that are then forwarded to the local offices. Without
those, we are left with a ``mom and pop'' forecast system that we had
decades ago.
It may be fashionable these days to cut personnel in Washington
headquarters, as suggested by the bill's report language; but in this
case it is in fact the Weather Service Headquarters that operates the
forecast model that is essential to the rest of the system. It is the
central office that does this. This is simply not something that can be
done locally.
Another effect of the bill will be to eliminate the staffing needed
for the three new weather offices that the Secretary of Commerce
recently identified as being essential to regaining full coverage in
critical areas such as northern Indiana and Alabama. We have worked
long and hard to ensure that the new NEXRAD system will have the
capability to provide adequate coverage. It is simply foolish to cut
the very funding that will be needed to operate these new sites, and
the Members from these areas have frequently indicated their strong
support for the kind of coverage that this would provide.
Although the report language of the bill expresses an intent that
only headquarters staffing should be impacted by the proposed
reduction, the National Weather Service has determined that it will be
impossible to meet the reduction with headquarters RIF's alone.
[[Page H8263]]
Additional reductions in the field would need to be made. This, in all
likelihood, would mean a reduction of one shift in each field office
nationwide.
Finally, the bill would cancel the radiosonde replacement network
program of the National Weather Service thus terminating the principal
source of upper air data required for all weather forecasts and
warnings. Specifically, this network is critical for up-to-date data
for major events such as hurricanes, snow storms, and major flooding.
It is ironic that we are taking this action at the outset of the
hurricane season when national attention will be focused on the ability
of the Weather Service to give us accurate information on the path and
potential hazards of such major tropical storms.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately my amendment would not fully restore the
funding that was eliminated in the bill. I have taken only a very
modest first step by proposing the elimination of several unauthorized
programs that were never requested by the administration.
These programs include the Great Lakes lamprey eradication program
that is presently being administered by the Department of State and
also the Regional Climate Centers that were part of NOAA's old weather
forecast network. Together, these programs have received $6 million in
the bill, and my amendment would direct the funding freed up to the
Operations and Research account of the Weather Service.
Mr. Chairman, it was never my intent, and I want to make this very
clear, to eliminate the Great Lakes lampricide program which I fully
support. I firmly believe, however, that it should remain in the State
Department and the intended effect of my amendment was to accomplish
this. This is the same aim that I understand most, if not all, the
Members from that region would also prefer to have. I am aware,
however, that the supporters of this program are uncomfortable with my
amendment; and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do plan to withdraw it
after this brief discussion.
I am certainly willing to work with the supporters of this program to
put it on a firmer footing in conference and to ensure that it ends up
in an agency that can sustain it.
I hope by offering my amendment that we can fully focus on the real
problems this bill creates for the National Weather Service. I would
ask the distinguished chairman and my colleagues to help rectify this
problem before the bill gets to the President.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky continue his
reservation?
Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman, but pending that, I seek time to
oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full
committee.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I think that those of us in the
Great Lakes region who are concerned with the lamprey program agree
with the intent of the gentleman in terms of who ought to be
administering the program. We also agree with him in terms of the
inadequacy of the funds provided for the Weather Service. But we do not
like the third result of the gentleman's amendment, which would be to
eliminate the program, because the lamprey eradication program is
absolutely crucial to the retention of a healthy Great Lakes fisheries
industry.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I for one, and I know many
others, would be very happy to work with the gentleman from California
to work out the problems that he has indicated; but we appreciate the
fact that he recognizes that it also has an additional result which
would not be acceptable to us in the region, given our concern about
the Great Lakes fisheries in general.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me this time. I want
to begin by expressing great respect and affection for my dear friend
from California, Mr. Brown. I agree with him fully with regard to the
impropriety of cutting the money to the Weather Service. I also agree
with him with regard to the urgent need to see to it that that program
is properly funded and that the conduct of the lamprey program should
be within the State Department. However, I would like my colleagues to
understand something about the importance of the lamprey control
program in the Great Lakes. The cost of this program is miniscule. The
value of the fishery in the Great Lakes alone is better than $4
billion. Each salmon and each lake trout which are a part of the prey
of the lamprey is worth better than $70 each, to each of the States in
which it is caught. So the value of this fishery is enormous. A great
and prosperous fishery is threatened by an alien species which has come
into the Great Lakes. A few years ago better than 1 in 3 fish caught in
the Great Lakes had a lamprey attached to it. The destruction of the
fishery was enormous and the cost to the people both in terms of
aesthetics and in terms of fish and wildlife values and just plain cash
money was enormous. It is my hope that this program can be continued
unimpaired.
I recognize the value of the suggestions of the gentleman from
California for whom I reiterate great respect, but I urge my colleagues
to support this protection of one of the great treasures of the United
States, the Great Lakes, and the precious fishery resources which are
utilized for the benefit of all the people of this country.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to rise in opposition to
the gentleman from California's amendment today; and I, like my
colleagues from the Great Lakes, appreciate his offer to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support that Chairman Rogers has shown
in controlling the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes by providing level
funding in this bill of over $8 million for the sea lamprey program.
The bill before us, however, already redirects over $4 million to the
Department of Commerce for administration by NOAA. This in my opinion
and the opinion of others from the Great Lakes region, jeopardizes a
program that has been very successful, so successful in fact that we
have seen an eradication to over 90 percent from record levels of the
sea lamprey.
For those in the Chamber who are not familiar with the sea lamprey,
let me assure you that it is not something you want in your backyard.
In the Great Lakes we have seen an invasion of this eel-like
nonindigenous species. In addition to being just a hideous-looking
thing, it is parasitic and during its parasitic period can devour
between 10 and 40 pounds of fish.
Before the creation of this commission, the sea lamprey virtually
destroyed our entire region's prosperous recreational and commercial
fisheries, practically wiped it out. We cannot backslide on these
efforts.
I look forward to not only working with the chairman, but also the
gentleman from California and Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
While Representative Brown may be correct that funding for the sea
lamprey control program belongs in the State Department, the
elimination of this funding would be devastating to the Great Lakes
fishing industry.
It's estimated that the total economic value of the Great Lakes
fisheries is nearly $4 billion per year.
Between Americans and Canadians combined, over 3.3 million people
fish the Great Lakes recreationally, supporting about 54,000 full-time
jobs.
Over the course of its 1-to-2-year adult life, a single sea lamprey
can kill 40 or more pounds of fish.
[[Page H8264]]
In 1992, 71 percent of the lake trout in Northern Lake Huron were
killed by the lamprey. In Lake Superior, about 40 percent of the annual
mortality of lake trout is attributable to lamprey predation.
For over 40 years, the United States and Canada have abided by a
binational treaty to fight the sea lamprey problem. The elimination of
funding for the U.S. portion of this program would violate this
longstanding international agreement.
The sea lamprey control program has been a huge success. The
binational control program has reduced sea lamprey population by 90
percent from their record highs in the 1950's.
However, cutting funding for sea lamprey control now would be
devastating, as complete eradication of the species is not possible.
In addition, the conventional form of fighting the sea lamprey, the
chemical lampricide treatment, is rapidly increasing in cost, having
tripled since 1986.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has been able to suppress lampreys
by 90 percent. Any reduction in funding would undermine the
Commission's efforts and once again jeopardize the Great Lakes fishing
industry.
Even a short-term interruption in lamprey control could be
devastating to the fishery. A disruption in funding could allow for a
severe increase in sea lamprey population, causing greater lamprey
predation and a critical loss of Great Lakes fish.
The sea lamprey problem is not limited to the Great Lakes region. The
lamprey has been known to appear in Lake Champlain and the Finger Lakes
in New York.
The last thing we want is for the sea lamprey to become like the
zebra mussel--another nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that
causes millions of dollars in damages.
Originally discovered in the Great Lakes in the 1980's, the zebra
mussel is spreading rapidly across the United States, having been found
throughout the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast, in Chesapeake Bay,
and in isolated locations as far away as California.
Cutting funding for the sea lamprey program would erase the progress
we have made in controlling the sea lamprey, and threaten the fishing
industry with a population explosion of this deadly species.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I regrettably rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. I do not dispute the critical mission of the National
Weather Service. I too, would like to see it funded more robustly.
However, I cannot support the amendment's offsets, and I rise in
opposition.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the goal of this
particular amendment which is to increase funding to the National
Weather Service but in strenuous opposition to the ultimate outcome
which would cut funding from the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission and
their strong record on lamprey eradication.
For those not familiar with this particular species, they are a
primitive eel-like fish who in their lifetime can, by attaching to fish
and feeding on their body fluids, kill 40 or more pounds of fish. By
the 1950's lamprey predation in the Great Lakes greatly reduced the
number of lake trout, whitefish and other desirable species in the
Great Lakes and the once thriving fisheries were devastated. This is of
tremendous economic impact to the Great Lakes. Generations of Americans
and Canadians have grown up enjoying fishing in the Great Lakes and
estimates place the total annual income value of the Great Lakes
fisheries at up to $4 billion. Over 2.5 million Americans fish the
Great Lakes, another 83,000 adult Canadians fish the Great Lakes and
these sport fishermen stimulate over $3 billion in economic activity
for the region and support roughly 54,000 jobs. By the same token a
thriving commercial fishery is estimated to bring in an additional $300
million annually to both countries and employ thousands. So the
continued work on keeping this predator at bay is tremendously
important.
I want to make sure that we maintain the funding at levels that will
maintain these programs, but more importantly that this program go back
to the State Department and not remain in the NOAA system for several
reasons: First is that the Great Lakes are under management
jurisdiction of two Federal Governments, one Province, 8 States and
several sovereign tribal authorities. We need to have the expertise of
the State Department involved in the negotiations that regularly go on
in this area.
The House subcommittee proposal is going to add another layer of
bureaucracy to a system that works pretty well right now and there
really is not an argument to rework it. Also the State Department has
mechanisms in place to efficiently and effectively transfer funds to
international organizations such as the Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission. Plus the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission relies on the
State Department to provide diplomatic guidance, to negotiate financial
arrangements, bilateral coordination of fishery management programs, et
cetera. It is important that funding remain at a constant level for
this program and that the program be returned to States.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to vote against this particular
amendment and to send a message to the conference committee to go with
the Senate in returning this program to the jurisdiction of the
Department of State.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the
time remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has
5\3/4\ minutes remaining.
The point of order still remains in front of the amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. I think we can resolve that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just make
one concluding statement.
Actually, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers] made a number of
points that I had intended to make with regard to the existing
management of the program which is conducted under a treaty agreement
with Canada, with the State Department as the responsible party. One of
the points that I intended to make and which she has already confirmed
is that the committee's proposal could have serious negative impacts on
the sea lamprey program.
If the committee is insistent on changing the funding mechanism for
the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, a successful arrangement that has
worked very well, we propose, and NOAA recommends, that changes be
postponed until an arrangement that does not contravene the convention
can be developed.
{time} 1145
Mr. Chairman, I have taken this time, and I apologize because I know
how precious the time is, because I think this is a matter of
sufficient importance, both because of the impact on the weather
service and of course the impact of the offset which dealt with the sea
lamprey program. I had hoped that the members of the committee, for who
I have high respect, could consider these points as they moved their
bill forward into the conference proceedings.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to withdraw my amendment at this time and save the gentleman the pain
of his point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. deutsch
Mr. DEUTSCH. 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. Deutsch: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS--state and local law
enforcement assistance'', not more than ninety percent of the
amount to be awarded to an entity under part Q of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall
be made available to such an entity when it is made known to
the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend
such funds that the entity that employs a public safety
officer (as such term is defined in section 1204 of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968)
[[Page H8265]]
does not provide such a public safety officer who retires or
is separated from service due to injury suffered as the
direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in
the line of duty while responding to an emergency situation
or a hot pursuit (as such terms are defined by State law)
with the same or better level of health insurance benefits
that are paid by the entity at the time of retirement or
separation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] will be recognized for 5
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the impetus for this amendment came out of an incident
in my district where two Plantation police officers, Officers Alu and
O'Hara, responded to a hostage situation. In their response to the
hostage situation where there were two young girls being held by
someone, they went into a residential home.
The gentleman set fire to himself and the two girls as well as the
two police officers. The gentleman and two girls were killed. The two
police officers were in critical condition. One officer, burned over 80
percent of his body, ended up spending 6\1/2\ months in intensive care.
During the initial period when they entered the hospital, they found
out unfortunately that if they remain permanently disabled they would
in fact lose their health care coverage for themselves and their
family. They would be able to purchase COBRA coverage for 18 months.
COBRA coverage, as most people know, is very expensive. But after that
18-month period they would become essentially uninsurable.
What this amendment would do is, throughout the country--the city of
Plantation retroactively changed its ordinance, the State of Florida in
its last session has required every jurisdiction in the State of
Florida to continue health care benefits in the case of a law
enforcement officer actively pursuing a criminal investigation or
incident like that--to continue benefits. It does not require
additional benefits. It only requires benefits that that law
enforcement officer would have had had he been able to remain in the
job.
I know there are at least one or two gentlemen that would like to
speak, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the Deutsch
amendment. As you know, I was a police officer and have been a strong
advocate of the COPS Program. At the age of 32 I suffered a permanent
injury. I am medically retired from the Michigan State Police. At the
time I was 32 years old. I have two children and a wife. How do you
provide, not just for the injuries that you have suffered, but how do
you provide for your family, how do you provide for your children
health coverage if the jurisdiction that hired you does not provide it?
The Deutsch amendment says those that are involved in emergency
situations, firefighters and police officers, would be allowed to
continue their insurance coverage for not only themselves but also
their families. We ask much of police officers and firefighters. The
least we can do, when they are injured performing their duties, is to
provide at least some degree of respectability and financial stability
by providing health insurance for them.
I was fortunate that the State of Michigan provided that for me when
I received my injuries, but unfortunately, as the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] has pointed out, that is not the case all around
this country.
We ask many things of police officers. I would ask that we not leave
them hanging, that we provide some degree of security for them and
their families when they do meet these permanently disabling injuries.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], another former law
enforcement officer who has been instrumental in this amendment and
instrumental in its companion bill.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deutsch
amendment. It is an amendment based on the Alu-O'Hara Public Safety
Benefits Act. As a 39-year law enforcement officer veteran, I know how
difficult it is for public safety officers to put their lives on the
line day after day protecting the public.
Last year two would-be rescuers, police officers Alu and O'Hara, were
seriously burned when they entered an apartment where a deranged person
was holding two hostages. Tragically, the two hostages and the officers
were doused with gasoline by the hostage taker, who set fire to both
the officers and the hostages. The hostages died.
After nearly losing their lives, the officers and their families who
depended on them lost their health benefits. Unlike veterans who have
risked their lives to protect our national security, those who protect
our community can lose everything if they are injured in the line of
duty. Public safety officers who suffer career-ending injuries often
have their health insurance canceled by municipalities or States that
they were fighting to protect.
This bipartisan legislation would create a safety net for injured
officers. This amendment creates an incentive for communities that
receive Federal crime dollars to extend health insurance to officers
who are injured in the line of duty and would otherwise be left without
health coverage. I urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch amendment.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment
offered by Mr. Deutsch, and I thank the gentleman for working with the
authorizing committee to develop the language of the amendment and
thank him for his work. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his
leadership in this area. The problem that he addresses is certainly one
that needs to be addressed and that we need to be successful in
working. He has provided considerable leadership in this area.
I personally am concerned that in its present form there might be a
possibility that it would encumber the COPS Program, and we do not in
any way want to do that. I hope that we can assess that possibility,
that concern, as this process moves forward, and achieve the desired
result in a way that accommodates certainly every goal of the COPS
Program and also the very worthy underlying goal of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank both the chairmen and ranking members and
their staffs, as well as my staff, for their work to get to the point
where hopefully this amendment is going to be adopted. As the ranking
member pointed out, I have been a very strong supporter of the COPS
Program. I do not think this penalizes it.
As this works through final passage, our hope is that our continued
discussion might be able to resolve some of those issues.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, the Deutsch-Heineman amendment is to
protect all of those who work to protect us.
Throughout this country thousands of men and women serve their
communities as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical
technicians. They all perform the vital and dangerous work of keeping
us and our families safe from crime, fire, and accident.
We all accept the contract between society and the members of the
Armed Forces who are injured in our defense. It is simple fairness that
we recognize that the same obligation exists between society and those
who risk their lives defending us against domestic threats.
In a number of jurisdictions, an officer who can no longer work, due
to job related injuries, can lose his health coverage. This nearly
happened to two police officers, Officer Joseph Alu and Detective James
O'Hara, who were severely wounded in responding to a hostage situation.
This amendment simply affirms the principle that those public safety
officers who are injured in the line of duty will not have their
heroism rewarded by being stripped of health coverage.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Deutsch amendment. There is nothing more tragic than the death or
injury of an EMT, firefighter, or police officer
[[Page H8266]]
incurred while performing their job. But what is equally tragic is that
these courageous men and women, and their families, are often left with
huge medical bills they are unable to pay.
Under current law, there is no assurance that public safety officers
retain their health benefits after being injured in the line of duty.
These injured public servants are left disabled and unable to pay those
expenses resulting from simply doing their job.
Mr. Speaker, every American citizen benefits from the protection and
security that our police and firefighters provide. It is only fair that
these individuals be taken care of financially after serving their
community at their own risk. In 1989, I introduced the Steven McDonald
Public Safety Officers' Compensation Act that subsequently was passed
into law. This bill provides for a one-time Federal disability payment
to law enforcement and public safety officers permanently disabled
while performing an official duty. The Deutsch amendment will further
this most important goal of providing these officers with well-deserved
financial security upon the unfortunate event they are injured on the
job.
As a former New York City police officer, I am pleased that Mr.
Deutsch has brought this important measure to the House floor. I urge
my colleagues to support law enforcement and all public health officers
by voting in favor of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maine is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for his willingness to work with other
Members, particularly on the most recent amendment dealing with
enhanced protection for our public safety officers.
I want to seek the Chair's cooperation, and also the members of the
committee. I am very concerned about the deep cuts sustained by the
State maritime academies in the Maritime Administration Operations and
Training account in this bill. These six schools, including the Maine
Maritime Academy in my home State of Maine, as well as schools in
Massachusetts, New York, Texas, California, and the Great Lakes region,
provide this Nation with three quarters of its licensed merchant marine
officers, officers of superb quality and dedication.
They do this largely as State-supported institutions whose students
pay the majority of the schools' operating costs through tuition. The
Nation receives a tremendous return on this nominal investment in these
schools. The total cost has been less than $10 million spread amongst
all six institutions.
This money provides the maintenance and repair funds for the training
ships which are provided by the Government and provide the students
with the sea time that is required for them to receive their mariner's
license. It also provides modest incentive stipends to some of these
students, and in exchange the United States can rely on a cadre of
qualified maritime officers to man its ready reserve force ships in
times of national emergency.
This program has been a model of State-Federal partnership as well as
cost sharing in a vital program which the Congress has been advocating.
Yesterday, unfortunately, the committee cut its funding to less than a
quarter of what is needed to sustain the program at the six schools,
and in my opinion has imposed these reductions without rationale or
justification.
We are hopeful that the Senate will fully fund these important
schools and ensure that the appropriation is sustained when that bill
comes to conference. I would appreciate the Chair's willingness to work
with us to see that the funding can be restored consistent with the
objectives of the committee and this legislation.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LONGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman we will work with
his concerns very deeply. I thank the gentleman very much for his help.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Before the
short title at the end of the bill insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated to the Federal
Communications Commission by this Act shall be used to assign
a license for advanced television services until the
Commission has, by rule, specifically defined the obligations
of holders of such licenses to operate in the public
interest, convenience, and necessity, unless the assignment
of such a license is by a system of competitive bidding (in
the case of mutually exclusive applications for such a
license).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be recognized
for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it would constitute legislation in an
appropriations bill in violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of
the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume. I will not take very much now because, the point of
order having been reserved, I think we will probably be debating the
second of the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I am very frustrated that we are about to make, as a
government, a decision involving the disposition of one of our most
valuable national resources, the currently unused portion of the
broadcast spectrum. We were about to see it given, if we do not do
something different, to the broadcasters, very wealthy entities. The
broadcasters have already made it clear that when they accept this gift
from us, they believe it is subsequently their property essentially to
do as they wish with.
What is interesting is, we are talking not simply about a loss of
revenue to the Federal Government, estimated upwards of $11 billion,
some estimates go as high as $70 billion, but what is particularly
striking to me is the majority is apparently expressing its preference
here for central planning over the free market. We are being told that
a Federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, should as a
matter of fiat decide how to allocate this valuable resource, and that
the free market will not work to do it.
We will, as I said, be able to debate this at greater length. There
are two versions of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this point so that
the gentleman's point of order could be acted on, and depending on how
it is disposed of, we can proceed from there.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
point of order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on his point of
order?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, regretfully and respectfully, I must insist
on my point of order against the amendment on the ground that it would
constitute legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of rule
XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member want to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will be heard to say that
I would not have offered legislation under an appropriations bill if we
were offered the chance to legislate on a legislation bill. In the
absence of our being given a chance to legislate any other way, I
offered this.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point of
order by the gentleman from Virginia?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of order that the amendment
violates clause 2 of rule XXI by legislating on a general appropriation
bill.
As stated by the gentleman from Virginia in support of his point of
order, an amendment forbidding expenditure of an appropriation unless
or until action is taken that is not currently required by existing law
is not in order
[[Page H8267]]
as a limitation. this principle is recorded in Deschler's Precedents,
volume 8, chapter 26, section 47.1.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Before the
short title at the end of the bill insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated to the Federal
Communications Commission by this Act shall be used to assign
a license for advanced television services.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be recognized
for 10 minutes in support of his amendment, and a Member opposed will
be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] seek to control the
time in opposition?
Mr. BLILEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent that half
of my time be given to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and
that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I had no objection to the gentleman from Virginia
giving a significant chunk of time to the gentleman from Michigan. That
is reasonable among colleagues. But giving a large part of the
broadcast spectrum now owned by the public to some of the wealthiest
entities in America for nothing seems to me to be in error.
{time} 1200
I would have preferred a legislative forum in which to discuss this
because we have a fundamental decision here. We now have, through
technology, available a significant part of the broadcast spectrum
currently unallocated. No one has any legal right to it.
We have people who want simply to give that for nothing, this
enormously valuable asset, the right to broadcast, to the TV networks,
the TV license holders, entities wealthy in themselves, controlled by
some of the wealthiest entities in America. The alternative, of course,
would be to auction this off. The alternative would be to say, well,
the public owns this important asset, it ought to be utilized. Let us
let the free market decide.
Now, remember, there are two aspects to an auction. First, when you
sell this to the highest bidder, and you could put conditions on it if
you wanted to, but as you sell it you get two results: First, you get
revenue for the public.
We are being told every day of the week that we cannot do things. The
majority Member just complained that we are not doing enough for
maritime, we are not doing enough for health care, we are not doing
enough for the environment. Yet we will give $11 to $70 billion in
assets away for free to some of the wealthiest people in the country.
This retires the corporate welfare title for all time.
It would seem to me that those who advocate this, who then want to
object to corporate welfare, would have a heavy burden of proof in
differentiating this from that concept which they would then purport to
lament. But there is another aspect to it which it seems to me the
majority should like, the Republican majority. We have two ways to
allocate this resource: One is by government fiat, by central planning.
We can go to the Federal Communications Commission, that agency of
public officials appointed by the President, and say, you decide.
Forget all this market stuff. Market schmarket. Let us not get into
this business. Let us make a nice central planning decision how to do
this. Or we go the free-market route. We can say here is a valuable
asset. The best way to decide how to use it is, in fact, to allocate it
to the market and let the market decide.
We have had a series of auctions in other parts of the spectrum, and
in every case they have produced even more money than we thought. My
amendment simply says do not go forward. But as I made clear by
offering the first amendment, to which people objected on procedural
grounds, my preference is, in fact, to say either we have an auction or
we say that this has public interest obligations, because I want to
address now the approach of the broadcasters.
The broadcasters say, ``Oh, don't auction this off; we are the
trustees of the public interest. This is something which we want to
deal with as a matter of the public interest. Give it to us, don't have
something as crass as an auction. Don't talk about money. We, after
all, are seeped in the obligations to advance public debate.''
That is until they get it. Once they get it, as witness the debate
over children's television or the fairness doctrine or anything else,
once they get this asset for free, having justified the gift on the
grounds they are the trustees of public opinion, it all of a sudden
becomes private property. I have never seen such a transformation. When
the broadcasters want to get it, the question is whether they should
pay for it or get it for free. They are a charity. They are the United
Way. They are the spokesperson for the public interest. Once they get
it this becomes private property, and no one should tell them what to
do with it.
My first version of the amendment, ruled out of order, would say it
has to be one or the other. Either they pay for it in an auction and
let the free market decide how to best use it or they get it under the
guise of they are seeped in the public interest and we then make clear
that their public interest obligations are.
Mr. Chairman, as I close off at this point, let me just quote from
someone who says:
* * * the broadcasters should be happy with the deal they
already have. They have been getting free channels for years.
In return, they fulfill public interest obligations, such as
reporting news and information. Now they want more airwaves
for free.
Newspapers also report the news, but Congress has never had
to buy them off. It seems to me, this man says, that giving
broadcasters free spectrum is like giving newspapers free
paper from our national forests.
Congress has never challenged whether broadcasters should
be allowed to keep a channel. Instead, we are simply stating
that if broadcasters want more channels, then they are
going to pay the taxpayers for them. That does not kill
television.
The broadcasters say they cannot afford to buy additional
airways, which the Congressional Budget Office says is worth
$12 billion.
Broadcasters say that if they had to pay for the extra
airwaves, it would be the end of so-called free, over-the-air
television. The facts speak otherwise. According to the
Washington Post, over the last 2 years broadcasts deals in
the private sector amounted to $31.3 billion.
All TV broadcast licenses in America were originally given
away for free, but only 6 percent are still in the hands of
the original licensee. The other 94 percent have been bought
and sold. My point is that broadcasters have a long history
of paying top dollar for existing channels. Somehow they
cannot afford any new ones unless the taxpayer picks up the
tab.
That was not just me speaking, Mr. Chairman; that was a private
citizen by the name of Bob Dole. I suppose if he was a Senator under
the rules I could quote him. But I quoted what Bob Dole said in April.
I just think it is disrespectful to the memory of that great Senate
career so blatantly to disregard what Senator Dole said within a few
months. Sic transit gloriea Dole. Here we have Senator Dole making this
very important statement against this giveaway and within months of his
departure his colleagues have forgotten the principles he enunciated.
I think on this issue Senator Dole, when he was Senator Dole, was
right. I think Mr. Dole is still right. I think Mr. Dole would
undoubtedly say himself that Mr. Dole is still right in exactly those
same words, and I hope we will not make a multibillion dollar giveaway
and allow the free market to make this decision.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H8268]]
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to correct a couple of
statements of my good friend from Massachusetts, because I know he
always wants to be accurate. He says that he would not be doing this
here if there were hearings and it was done in the proper way in the
authorizing committee.
I would remind the gentleman that we passed a telecommunications bill
and this issue was in the bill. It was thoroughly debated in the
committee. Since the time we passed the bill there has been a hearing
in the other body and there has been a hearing over here by the very
able chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Fields]. It has not been done in the dark of the night.
The second thing I want to point out is it is not a gift, it is a
loan. And why is it a loan? It is a loan because one has to have all
new equipment to broadcast digital TV. It is estimated to cost $10
billion. While the broadcaster is purchasing his new equipment and
broadcasting the signal under digital, he must continue to broadcast
under analog, the existing technology, or he loses his audience.
We do not know when the American public will shift to advanced
television. We do not even know if they will. We think they will, but
we do not know when. And that is the reason for the loan.
Once the shift occurs, then the existing analog comes back, or if the
station does not use the digital, that comes back. It is then packaged
and auctioned off, and the taxpayers will get the highest dollar for
it. The $12 billion CBO estimate is purely speculative.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing great respect and affection for
my good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. I have the most enormous
regard for him. I would observe, however, that on this matter both he
and Mr. Dole are dead wrong, and I would like to explain why.
First of all, I would point out that we have had this matter before
the body for consideration on a number of occasions. It was debated on
the floor last August, when the telecommunications bill was considered
by the House. It was debated again in January when the House considered
the conference report. And language similar to that which is offered by
my good friend from Massachusetts was overwhelmingly rejected by the
Congress.
Now, why? The gentleman claims this is a giveaway. Nothing is further
from the truth. The FCC and the broadcast industry are attempting to
bring forward new technology of value to this country, high definition
television, and to do so by lending to the broadcasters an additional
channel. This will enable us to make the shift from current technology,
using old-fashioned analog technology, to the new digital technologies
which will afford this country the best and the highest quality
television in the world.
At the conclusion of that, the loan of the additional spectrum will
have to be returned. Either the licenses which are now used by the
broadcasters or the new licenses will have to be returned. The law
requires that this exchange be done in the public interest. It is in
the Communications Act of 1934. It was passed as part of the
Telecommunications Act which was enacted last year.
The specific controlling language says this, and I am referring to
section 336(c) of the Communications Act:
Recovery of License. If the Commission grants a license for
advanced television services to a person that, as of the date
of such issuance, is licensed to operate a television
broadcast station or holds a permit to construct such station
or both, the Commission shall, as a condition of such
license, require that either the additional license or the
original license held by the licensee be surrendered to the
Commission for reallocation or reassignment (or both)
pursuant to Commission regulation.
What we are going is we are enabling this country to move forward
into the digital age by making available spectrum which can be loaned
to the licensees of the Commission, at the conclusion of which that
spectrum must be returned to the Commission for reallocation.
Remember that the licensees are going to have to make a huge
investment in new broadcasting facilities. That is for the benefit of
the public, which is going to be watching a new kind of technology
coming over their television sets. And so we have to provide first the
spectrum to the broadcasters, and then we have to give the viewers the
time to decide whether, and when, they want to acquire a digital
television set in the home.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\
minutes.
First, I want to correct the correction of the gentleman from
Virginia. He said we dealt with this in the telecommunications bill.
No. What we did in the telecommunications bill was to say that we will
deal with this later. Now that it is later, we are saying we dealt with
it in the telecommunications bill.
I read from the letter of January 31, 1996 to Reed Hundt, signed by
the gentleman from Virginia, chairman of the committee in the Senate,
the Senate majority leader now, and the Speaker. ``We share Senator
Dole's determination to protect American taxpayers.'' They did in
January. Kind of faded. ``We wish to inform the Commission that it is
our intention to conduct open hearings and move legislation to overhaul
our Nation's policies governing the electromagnetic spectrum. We
request the Commission not issue any initial licenses or construction
permits until legislation is completed.''
There is no legislation. So, in fact, what they said when this came
up in the telecommunications bill is we will do it later and now they
say we did it in telecommunications bill.
Second, I say to my friend from Michigan, and I was delighted when he
said he had great respect and affection for me. One day I will be here
when he has respect and affection for someone he agrees with. It has
not reached that.
We are only lending it to them. I accept that. This is the world's
most expensive lendaway. This says here, ``You can have this
extraordinarily valuable asset for a very long time, there is no end
date, and you do not pay for the use of it.'' So it is now a giveaway;
it is a new thing; it is a lendaway. But I have to say if the gentleman
were going to lend me his house to rent out and not pay him anything,
if he were going to lend me a couple billion dollars that I could lease
out and get the interest on, I would be pretty happy. It is turning
over to the private sector people an enormously important asset.
Finally, the gentleman from Michigan sketches out a thoughtful way
that we should have this view, and I understand from his perspective
why he does. It is particularly intriguing that Members on the majority
side agree because this is central planning. This is a valuable asset.
We have a question about how the economy will use it in the future.
{time} 1215
I am proposing the free market. I guess this shows that the
broadcasters follow the model that Senator Magnuson said: All any
business in America wants from the government is a reasonable advantage
over the competition. All they want is that we give them this. Then
they will be great enterprises, once they have got a $15- or $20- or
$30-billion head start.
In fact, Senator Dole, when he was still Senator Dole, was right then
when he said that. The letter which said, we will not do this until we
have passed legislation was right. We should not countenance a giveaway
or a lendaway today.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and I ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is recognized
for 1 minute.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here is we have the
[[Page H8269]]
former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and we have the
present chairman of Committee on Commerce, under the Republicans, both
agreeing that this is an issue where we should not charge the
broadcasters to go into the higher spectrum.
The analogy I would like to bring you your attention is the Homestead
Act. What happened was, we gave people land and we said, develop this
land. Just like we gave the broadcasters the analog spectrum and we
said, develop it. Now we are saying to the people on the homestead
piece of land, we want you to go somewhere else. We are not going to go
ahead and charge all these people to go somewhere else. We are asking
them to go and try it out, and then we will auction off what they have.
It is analogous to the Homestead Act.
I think if you think of it in those terms, you will realize we cannot
charge the broadcasters for this. They already have huge mortgage
payments, development of capital they have already invested. They
cannot go ahead and reinvest on this new spectrum first without paying
their old debt.
So what I am saying is, we need to allow them to go forward. Then we
can auction off their old piece of property, their old analog. For that
reason, I am against the Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the telecommunications legislation we passed earlier
this year calls for broadcasters to swap their current license to
broadcast analog television for a new license to broadcast digital
television. This approach allows for auctions to occur, which Mr. Frank
supports. However, it preserves the ability of American households'
access to the best free television system in the world, something that
does not seem to be of much interest of Mr. Frank.
This approach, supported by many in Congress, follows the concepts
agreed to about 8 years ago when the FCC directed broadcasters to
develop advanced television. In an effort to develop and promote
advanced television which uses the digital transmission of television
signals as opposed to the analog transmission of signals, the FCC, with
Congress' endorsement, agreed to provide broadcasters with an
additional six megahertz of spectrum. Digital transmission is superior
to analog transmission because it provides consumers with a clearer
picture, higher-quality sound, greater interactivity, and improved data
transmission.
Because broadcasters can't use existing spectrum to broadcast digital
signals, it was agreed that a second channel would be provided to
smooth the transition from the old analog format to the new digitized
one. The purpose of having two channels was not to make the
broadcasters happy, but to ensure that citizens yet to purchase new,
and costly, digitally capable television sets would not lose their
access to free, over-the-air services on their current television sets
as the transition took place. This plan ensures that viewers will not
lose access to current free over-the-air-television--which provides
households with access to local news, weather, public service events,
sports, not to mention entertainment.
The second channel is a straight swap of spectrum--not a giveaway.
Once there are enough digital televisions in use throughout the
country, the transition period would end. Then all broadcasts are to be
digitally transmitted and the old analog spectrum currently in use
would be returned to the Government which could auction it. If advanced
television is a flop, broadcasters could return the digital spectrum
and keep the old analog spectrum. Either way, the Government will have
spectrum it can repackage into larger more valuable sections and then
auction for other purposes such as cellular or PCS. In addition, the
Government may charge broadcasters a fee if they provide ancillary or
supplemental services such as faxing, paging or other subscription fee
services on the spectrum. This straight swap preserves, protects, and
improves television capability in our Nation.
Under the well-established 8-year-old plan which provides for the
transition from an analog world to a digital world, each television
station will already have to pay $8 to $10 million in moving,
equipment, and upgrading costs. Obviously, this is a huge cost for
many, but particularly for most broadcasters in small and medium-sized
markets, like Ocala and Jacksonville, FL, in my district, with assets
under $10 million. Heaping auction costs on top of this transition cost
will make it virtually impossible for many local broadcasters to
provide free, over-the-air programming in the digitized world. It does
not take a genius to figure out that if enough broadcasters are forced
out of the industry because of these costs, consumers will have less
choice in their viewing options. This effect runs counter to the very
purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which we envision to
create more consumer choice. There is no reason the continuation of
free television should be jeopardized needlessly in the information
age.
Clearly, this rational approach is a win-win situation for all
involved. Government wins because its coffers will be filled with
auction proceeds and fees from ancillary or supplemental services.
Those who care about the continued livelihood of free, over-the-air
broadcasting win because television programming won't be interrupted in
the transition from analog to digital. Broadcasters win because they
will remain competitive in the new information age. But above all,
consumers win because by following sensible public policy we will
ensure their continued access to news and information and will keep
their analog television sets from becoming obsolete overnight.
In passing the groundbreaking Telecommunications Act of 1996 we
allowed every segment of the telecommunications industry to move
forward and offer us new, innovative, and less expensive products. Lets
not hold back the only segment of the telecommunications industry that
provides us with a free service. Oppose the Frank amendment and support
the preservation of free-over-the-air broadcasting.
The CHAIRMAN. Because no Member controlling time is a member of the
committee; therefore, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as
the proponent, has the right to close the debate.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in objection to this
amendment. To permit a digital spectrum auction, as this amendment
does, would absolutely disrupt the economics of the broadcast industry
and would make it, I think, impossible for broadcasters to continue to
offer free television to American viewers.
The burden would fall heaviest on the middle- and lower- income
classes. I think we have to allow broadcasters to make the transition
to digital without any spectrum auction because the financial burden of
an auction plus as much as $8 to $10 million of additional hardware
cost to digital could kill a broadcast station.
Of course, we are talking about a compact between broadcasters and
the public, as Mr. Dingell said, dating back 60 years. Killing local
television means destroying a major lifeline for many. It would mean
the end to a part of the American culture. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Frank. This Congress has just
succeeded in passing the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996
following months of hearings and negotiations. This legislation
represented a bipartisan effort that resulted in an agreement made by
the House and the Senate to instruct the Federal Communications
Commission to move forward to implement a digital broadcasting plan.
My colleague, Mr. Frank, wants to pass an amendment that would
destroy any plan for a successful transition to digital broadcast
television. To permit digital spectrum auction, as is Mr. Frank's
intent, would disrupt the economics of the broadcast industry and would
make it impossible for broadcasters to continue to offer free
television to American viewers. The burden would fall heaviest on the
middle and lower income classes.
We must allow broadcasters to make the transition to digital without
any spectrum auctions. The financial burden of an auction plus as much
as $8 to $10 million of additional hardware costs to digital could kill
a broadcast station.
We are not talking about a free giveaway, as some people want to call
it.
This agreement is the result of legislation that this House
overwhelmingly passed and the President has signed it into law. I think
it is a waste of time to come here today and readdress this issue.
I personally do not want to go back to my Fourth District of Texas
and tell my constituents that they will have to start paying for their
local broadcasting because someone turned public interest into a fiscal
issue and is using this digital spectrum as a revenue potential instead
of a communications issue that should be decided on its merits. I urge
my colleagues to keep local television tax free and allow every
American to reap the benefits of digital technology instead of being
asked to reach into their pockets as they so often do.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if you like everything on television to be
pay per view, if you want to pay extra to
[[Page H8270]]
see the Olympics every time you want to see any Olympic game, if you
want to pay extra for baseball or for ER or for all the programs you
enjoy on commercial broadcast television that is commonly called free
television, vote with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
That is the net result.
If you charge the broadcasters extra taxes to broadcast those
programs, they will charge everything pay per view. That is the net
result. If you agree with Chairman Bliley and the former chairman, the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, then vote ``no'' on this
amendment to protect free TV. That is what it is all about.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I respectfully disagree
with my friend from Massachusetts on this particular amendment.
However, there are some areas of agreement. An area of agreement is
that the spectrum is a national resource. The taxpayer deserves its due
from that national resource.
Second, I would agree with the gentleman that there should have been
a decision this year on the transition from analog to digital. It is a
very complex issue. But we went through the process. This should be an
issue that comes up early next year through the process. This is not
the time to do it.
I believe very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that there should be a
transition as quickly as possible from the old technology of analog to
digital. That is consumer beneficial. I believe that there should be an
obligation for a period of time for a simulcast by the broadcaster,
both in analog and digital. And I believe very strongly that as soon as
there is adequate consumer penetration of the advanced television
market, there should be a giveback of that analog and at that time
there should be an auction.
It is my view that the consuming public, the taxpayer, gets more for
an auction of that analog spectrum at that particular moment. It is
important to recognize that we should not stifle or slow down in any
way a transition that is going on, a very important part of this
information age.
If you are for better television, if you are for television that
remains free over the air to the consumer, at this particular moment,
you must oppose the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
First the argument that this will be the end of free TV is, of
course, nonsense, as Senator Dole pointed out. The broadcasters say, if
you make us pay for this license, we will not be able to give you free
TV. Ninety-four percent of the current broadcasters paid for that
license. What they mean is, if we can pay each other billions of
dollars, then we can do it for free. But if any of that leaks into the
public, we will have to charge.
As Senator Dole pointed out in this speech, 94 percent of the current
broadcasters paid for their license. What happens, of course, is they
get the license for free. And that will happen with these licenses. We
will give some digital, some licenses to the spectrum. People will get
into the digital business. They will sell them back and forth to each
other. Some of the wealthiest entities in this society are making money
off of each other on this, which would be fine if it did not all begin
with a free grant from the public. That is the second point.
My friend from Texas says, this is the way it ought to be, by
Government fiat. Understand, and this, it seems to me, is the greatest
inconsistency, I guess we once again understand, the free market is for
minimum wage workers. The free market is for women on welfare. The free
market is for little people. You reach a point where you are too big to
be in the free market. Then you negotiate your deals with the
Government, except it is not really a deal because you get this for
nothing.
What we are being told is, given this new technology, given this
great resource, the unused part of the spectrum, the central Government
will decide how to do it. It will not be a free market decision. We
will allocate by Government fiat these resources to the existing very
wealthy entities, and they will decide how to do it. Should there be
high definition television? Should it replace the other? Why is the
free market not for that?
This reaffirms the majority's view here that they believe the free
market is great for small people and working people, but when wealthy
entities come, let us not disrupt them with the free market.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by my
friend from Massachusetts.
I'm concerned that this amendment, if enacted, would jeopardize
Americans' access to free television, especially those who live in
rural America. Rural stations simply cannot afford to spend $8-$10
million converting their stations to digital television technology.
Jobs will be lost if we do not convert to digital soon.
Ironically, delaying the issuance of this spectrum, as this amendment
would certainly do, will only push back the date when we can auction
off the tremendous chunk of spectrum that will be opened up when
stations return their analog spectrum.
The FCC, as well as the Commerce Committee, has studied this for many
years. We had hearings on this issue earlier this year, and the
committee benefited from Mr. Frank's testimony at that time.
It's now time to put some closure on this issue, so in a way, I'm
glad my colleague has offered his amendment. Let's send a message to
the FCC that this body wants the transition to digital television to
begin sooner rather than later. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following
documents in the Record. First, a letter dated, July 22, 1996, from a
broad coalition of liberal, moderate, and conservative organizations
expressing their support for the amendment to prevent the Federal
Communications Commission from giving away licenses for advanced
television services; second, a statement by former Senator Bob Dole in
support of auctioning the spectrum for advanced television services;
and third, a letter dated January 31, 1996, from Republican leaders
requesting that the FCC not issue any licenses or permits for the
provision of advanced television services until they can ``move
legislation to overhaul our Nation's policies governing the
electromagnetic spectrum'' which the Republican leadership has not even
tried to do.
July 22, 1996.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Frank: We are writing to express
support for your amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State
and the Judiciary appropriations bill to prevent the Federal
Communications Commission from assigning licenses for
advanced television services in fiscal year 1997.
The issue of whether incumbent broadcast licensees should
simply be given additional spectrum for digital operations
free of charge is of great importance to the debate over
fiscal policies for the next decade. The FCC estimates the
value of the digital spectrum at $11 billion to $70 billion.
In a time of budget cutting and fiscal belt-tightening, it
would be irresponsible for Congress to permit the FCC to
assign digital spectrum to existing broadcasters without a
thorough examination of the costs of such action. While we
believe broadcasters should have the opportunity to convert
to digital broadcasting format, we do not believe that an
open-ended giveaway of an extra 6 MHz of spectrum to all
existing broadcasters is the best way to accomplish that end.
We applaud your bold move to ensure that Congress will have
the opportunity to take a hard look at whether to auction or
give away the spectrum, and whether to establish a specific
time frame for completing the transition process. American
taxpayers deserve no less.
Sincerely,
Media Access Project; Center for Media Education; Common
Cause; Consumer Federation of America; Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste; National School
Boards Association; National Taxpayers Union; People
for the American Way; Small Business Survival
Committee.
____
Remarks by Former Senator Bob Dole, Congressional Record S3443, Apr.
17, 1996
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, TV broadcasters have broken their
trust with the American people. For more than 40 years, the
American people have generously lent TV station owners our
Nation's airwaves for free. Now some broadcasters want more
and will stop at nothing to get it. They are bullying
Congress and running a multimillion-dollar scare campaign to
mislead the public.
The reason is simple: Why pay for something when you can
get it for free? But there is one small problem. The airwaves
are the nation's most valuable natural resource and are worth
billions and billions of dollars. They do not belong to the
broadcasters. They do not belong to the phone companies. They
do not belong to the newspapers. Each and every wave belongs
to the American people, the American taxpayers. Our airwaves
are just as much a national resource as our national parks.
Enter the TV broadcasters. Earlier this year, I blocked
their legislative efforts to get
[[Page H8271]]
spectrum for free. At my request, Congress is now holding
open hearings on reforming our spectrum policies.
Apparantely, the democratic process is not good enough for
most broadcasters. So TV broadcasters are now running ads and
so-called public service announcements, claiming that TV will
die without this huge corporate welfare program, this
billions and billions of dollars they want to take away from
the American taxpayers. Of course, they do not call this
giveaway welfare; they call it a tax. Imagine calling a
giveaway a tax.
Also, I am aware that some broadcasters have asked Members
of Congress to drop by their stations. In the midst of these
friendly discussions, the broadcasters say, `I thought you
might want to see the ad we are considering running in your
district.'
So much for subtlety.
It seems to me the broadcasters should be happy with the
deal they already have. They have been getting free channels
for years. In return, they fulfill public interest
obligations, such as reporting news and information. Now they
want more airwaves for free.
Newspapers also report the news, but Congress has never had
to buy them off. It seems to me that giving broadcasters free
spectrum is like giving newspapers free paper from our
national forests.
Congress has never challenged whether broadcasters should
be allowed to keep a channel. Instead, we are simply stating
that if broadcasters want more channels, then they are going
to pay the taxpayers for them. That does not kill television.
The broadcasters say they cannot afford to buy additional
airwaves, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates is
worth at least $12 billion. Last time I checked, the American
people
We are trying to balance a budget with tax cuts for
families with children, reducing spending, and closing
loopholes.
Broadcasters say that if they had to pay for the extra
airwaves, it would be the end of so-called free, over-the-air
television. The facts speak otherwise. According to the
Washington Post, over the last 2 years broadcast deals in the
private sector amounted to a whooping $31.3 billion. That is
with a `b'--billion dollars.
Here is another fact. All TV broadcast licenses in America
were originally given away for free, but only 6 percent are
still in the hands of the original licensee. the other 94
percent have been bought and sold. My point is that
broadcasters have a long history of paying top dollar for
existing channels. Somehow they cannot afford any new ones
unless the taxpayer picks up the tab.
unfunded mandate on consumers
Before Congress lets huge moneyed interests get their
fingers on this national resource, we must be certain that
the American taxpayer is fully protected. The policy
broadcasters want will not only force taxpayers to give away
valuable airwaves, it will also force consumers to spend
hundreds of billions of their own dollars on new equipment
which is a point that I think has been overlooked. They have
been trying to frighten everybody with television, and to get
their way are going to have to have another television or
some attachment.
The fact is that federally mandating a transition to
digital broadcast will ultimately render all television sets
in the country obsolete. You will not be able to use your
television set.
Consumers will be forced to buy either new television sets
or converter boxes to receive so-called free, over-the-air-
broadcasts.
Last year we passed the unfunded mandates law. Perhaps some
have forgotten, but that law applies to more than just State
and local governments. It applies to the private sector and
most importantly to individuals.
The impact of the broadcasters' plan would be dramatic.
There are 222 million television sets in this country. At a
Senate Budget Committee hearing last month, the broadcasters
testified that the average digital television set's estimated
cost is $1,500, while the less expensive converter box will
cost approximately $500. Replacing every television set in
America with a digital one would cost $333 billion. Using the
less expensive converter box would cost $111 billion. No
doubt about it, consumers will not be happy that Congress
made this choice for them. That is precisely what we are
going to do here unless we wake up and smell something.
The American people should have a say before Congress makes
a decision on spectrum. After all, the airwaves are theirs
and so are their TV sets. Neither belongs to the
broadcasters.
network coverage
Finally, TV broadcasters have rightly kept a watchful eye
on a bloated Government. Whether it was $600 toilet seats or
$7,000 coffee pots. they have always helped us quickly
identify waste. But they have been strangely silent on this
issue. In contrast, story after story, and editorial after
editorial, protested this giveaway in the print media.
In fact, I have a whole bookful here. In fact, this is
loaded with editorials and comments about this giveaway. You
do not see it on television.
There have been a few exceptions. I want to be fair. CNN,
which is a cable network, has reported on this issue, while
CBS made an attempt a month ago. So-called public interest
obligations seem to have gone out the window when it is not
in the broadcasters' self-interest.
If five Senators took a legitimate trip somewhere overseas
to investigate something that might be costing the American
people money, that is reported on the evening news as a
junket costing thousands and thousands of dollars to the
American taxpayers because the Senators were over there
trying to see if they were spending too much on foreign aid
maybe in Bosnia or maybe somewhere else. That would be news.
Maybe it is news. Maybe it should be reported. But when it
comes to billion dollar giveaways, to them `mum' is the word.
You never hear about it on television. Dan Rather will not
utter a word. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokow--maybe they do not
know about it. But I would say to the American taxpayers and
the people with TV sets that somebody had better protect the
American public.
I have even had a threatening letter, which I will not put
in the file, that if I do not shape up and stop talking about
this, this broadcaster is going to get his 700 employees to
vote for someone else in November. That is intimidation.
I have no quarrel with the broadcasters. I have always
thought they were my friends. But it seems to me that when we
are trying to balance the budget and when we are asking
everybody to make a sacrifice, then we ought to make certain
that we do not give something away worth billions and
billions and billions of dollars.
Maybe the broadcasters felt this issue was not newsworthy.
But if that is the case, why did the National Association of
Broadcasters vote to go on the offensive and launch a multi-
million-dollar ad campaign to preserve, as they spin it,
free, over-the-air-broadcasting?
I have already indicated it is not going to be free. It is
going to cost you $500 for a converter box or $1,500 for a
new TV set. That is not free.
I did not realize that ad campaigns have replaced the
evening news.
conclusion
Mr. President, if the broadcasters have a case to make,
Congress is prepared to hear them. We are having fair and
open hearings, That is what democracy is all about. It is
not about distorting the truth and making thinly veiled
threats. The American people know this. And despite what
some might think, we are not easily duped.
I hope that fairness will prevail. I do not know what the
value should be. But we should find out. Maybe it is $1.
Maybe it is $1 million. Maybe it is $50 billion. But I never
found anything wrong with having a hearing and asking the
people that might be impacted, including the American
consumer, to come to testify. I believe many broadcasters
understand their responsibility. Maybe there are only a few
out there leading this effort to mislead the American public
and to walk away with billions of dollars in welfare from the
Congress of the United States.
I know this is not a very popular thing to do--to get up
and take on TV broadcasters or radio broadcasters because
they have a lot of free access to the airwaves. But I
believe, if we are serious about the budget and serious about
the future, serious about the taxpayers, that it at least
ought to be raised.
So I think they are all legitimate. But I think those
broadcasters who have not been blinded by greed--and there
are a lot of them out there that have not--will help shape
the future of television.
Again, I must say that I know it does not get a lot of
attention. But there are all kinds of columns here by
different people, William Safire and others, page after page,
hundreds of pages of stories about this giveaway.
I know the broadcasters are meeting in Las Vegas, and I
think it is time to throw the dice and have a hearing. Maybe
they can make their case. That is what Congress is all about.
But it seems to me that the President, I think, should have
an interest in this. It is not a partisan issue. It is an
issue of how we are going to pay the bills, how we are going
to balance the budget, and what amount will properly be
received in charging for spectrum.
Mr. Moynihan. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield
for a question?
Mr. Dole. I am happy to yield.
Mr. Moynihan. Does the leader have in mind to schedule
hearings and to ask the administration officials to testify?
Mr. Dole. In fact, I think we have had one. Senator
Pressler, chairman of the Commerce Committee, had 1 day of
hearings. There will be another day of hearings, I think,
next week to be followed by additional hearings. So there is
an effort to have everybody come in and testify and then make
a judgment.
I see the Senator from South Dakota is on the floor now.
That was part of the agreement on the telecommunications
bill--that the bill would go forward, there would be
hearings, and Congress would make a judgment for the American
people. We are going to have to cough up the money on what we
should do.
Mr. Moynihan. I thank the Senator. It is none too soon.
____
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC, January 31, 1996.
Hon. Reed E. Hundt,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As you are aware, Senator Majority
Leader Dole and others have raised legitimate concerns about
giving additional spectrum to television broadcasters. As you
are aware, these concerns
[[Page H8272]]
raise serious policy questions which include providing
taxpayers fair compensation for the use of a national
resource to the policy implications of giving preference to
the broadcasters over all other potential competitors.
We share Senator Dole's determination to protect America's
taxpayers, and to satisfactorily resolve this issue. We wish
to inform the Commission that it is our intention to conduct
open hearings and move legislation to overhaul our nation's
policies governing the electromagnetic spectrum. We request
that the Commission not issue any initial licenses or
construction permits for Advance Television Services until
legislation is completed. Furthermore, your input would be
greatly appreciated as we work to solve this complicated
issue.
We appreciate your cooperation in advance on this issue of
the utmost importance.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley.
Newt Gingrich.
Larry Pressler.
Trent Lott.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I rise
in opposition to the Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, new and advanced technology has made it possible for
broadcasters to offer consumers high quality digital television that
will eventually replace the current analog mode of broadcasting.
Digital or advanced television promises consumers sharper pictures, CD
quality sound, and more programming choices. But this transition to
digital television will take time. Broadcasters will have to invest in
new equipment and consumers will need new digital television sets or
converters that will allow their current sets to received digital
signals.
Congress has directed the FCC to allocate to the broadcasters
additional spectrum to begin broadcasting advanced television signals
while simultaneously continuing to broadcast current analog signals.
Once consumers are fully prepared to receive digital television, the
broadcasters will be required to return the spectrum they use for
analog television. This spectrum will be repackaged and auctioned by
the Federal Government.
We should reject the Frank amendment and allow the FCC to complete
this proceeding and finalize a plan for the transition to digital
television that is based on sound public policy designed to maximize
the benefits of technological progress for consumers and the Federal
Government.
Mr. Chairman, some proponents of the Frank amendment have argued that
an immediate auction of the spectrum that has been set aside for the
transition to digital television would yield billions of dollars for
deficit reduction. But what these proponents ignore is that such an
option would destroy an orderly transition to digital broadcasting,
deny millions of Americans the benefits of advanced television
services, and raised less money for the Federal Treasury than an
auction of repackaged analog spectrum.
Mr. Chairman, sound communications policy, not fiscal policy, should
guide the FCC toward the completion of this proceeding. I urge my
colleague to reject the Frank amendment. Let's allow the FCC to do its
job and proceed with a plan to make certain that all Americans reap the
benefits of digital television.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] will be postponed.
amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 52,
line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] will be recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am offering an amendment to H.R. 3814 to increase the funding to
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration grants
programs in the Commerce Department. I would like my fellow colleagues
to travel with me on a very brief journey in any order that we might
invest in America's future.
As a member of the Committee on Science, I have always said that
science is the work of the 21st century. My amendment would increase
NTIA by 10 million. These funds will go to NTIA's information
infrastructure grants program.
In 1995, out of the 1,800 applications representing over 4,000
organizations, only 117 grants to 47 States and the District of
Columbia totaling more than 30.7 million were awarded; 1,800
applications representing over 4,000 organizations, we only got 117
grants.
These grants were matched by more than 60 million in non-Federal
funds showing that there is a great interest in the private sector to
partnership with the Government.
These grants will allow kids in farming communities and inner cities
to bridge the information gap; bring better health care to seniors in
their own homes; provide valuable training and new job opportunities to
workers in economically depressed areas; and improve public safety by
helping to extend emergency telephone service nationwide and much more.
The need for this important program is tremendous. As many
communities in the country remain unable to access advanced networks or
information. According to a 1995 study, only 20 to 25 percent of the
Nation's hospitals and public libraries and only 9 percent of our
classrooms have access to the Internet or advanced information
services.
As a member of the telecommunications conference committee, one of
the important issues was the access of Internet and telecommunications
to our urban centers and, yes, our rural communities. I would hope my
colleagues would recognize that we do a great disservice to the work
force of the 21st century in not educating our children now and
providing the resources for it.
NTIA also brings computer literacy and skills to millions of
Americans who would not otherwise have access. This has a direct tie-in
to economic development that will pay off by the year 2000, when 60
percent of the new jobs will require skills currently held by only 20
percent of the population.
I have an interest in the dissemination of technology throughout our
Nation's society. Toward that end I am always exploring avenues on how
to best achieve that mission, and NTIA serves us as a very viable
vehicle for training our population. Unfortunately the lack of funding
has slowed that progress. With 2.5 million classrooms and 50 million
grade school students lacking access to this important innovation, it
is critical that all avenues be explored to make their technological
needs.
Without any rival to its supreme information status today, there are
many moves to create access to this new technology for all sectors of
our Nation. We must be competitive with our western nations and this
entire world.
I am sure Members are aware, just as I am, of the great benefits
personal computer technology has afforded modern society. It is an
artificial extension of human intellect which has advanced the
effectiveness of communication and the quality of information
gathering. This technology will be the economic backbone for many
communities far into the next century.
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that we can do no greater contribution
or make no greater contribution than the recognition of the valuable
importance of technology in the 21st century and that we not leave one
soul on the sidelines looking on, not one child from our rural
communities, not one child from urban America, not one library, not one
school teacher, not one school, not one university.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 3814, the Commerce-
Justice-State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act for fiscal year
1997, to increase the funding to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration [NTIA], grants programs in the Commerce
Department. I would like to invite my fellow colleagues to invest in
our Nation's future by supporting this amendment.
[[Page H8273]]
My amendment would increase funding to NTIA by $10 million. These
funds will go to NTIA's information infrastructure grants program.
In 1995, out of the 1,800 applications, representing over 4,000
organizations, only 117 grants to 47 States and the District of
Columbia totaling more than $35.7 million were awarded. These grants
were matched by more than $60 million in non-Federal funds. These
grants will allow kids in farming communities and inner cities to
bridge the information gap; bring better health care to seniors in
their own homes; provide valuable training and new job opportunities to
workers in economically depressed areas; and improve public safety by
helping to extend emergency telephone service nationwide; and much much
more.
The need for this important program is tremendous, as many
communities in the country remain unable to access advanced networks or
information. According to a 1995 study, only 20 to 25 percent of the
Nation's hospitals and public libraries, and only 9 percent of our
classrooms have access to the Internet or advanced information
services.
NTIA also brings computer literacy and skills to millions of
Americans who would not otherwise have access. This has a direct tie-in
to economic development that will pay off by the year 2000 when 60
percent of the new jobs will require skills currently held by only 20
percent of the population.
As a member of the House Committee on Science, I have an interest in
the dissemination of technology throughout our Nation's society. Toward
that end, I am always exploring avenues on how to best achieve that
mission, and I believe that NTIA has proven itself to be up to the task
of spreading the information age to many deserving communities across
this country.
Unfortunately, the lack of funding has slowed the progression of
computer technology into our Nation's schools. With 2.5 million
classrooms and 50 million grade school students lacking access to this
important innovation it is critical that all avenues be explored to
meet their technological needs. Without any rival to its supreme
information status to date, there are many moves to create access to
this new technology for all sectors of our Nation.
I am sure you are aware, just as I am, of the great benefits personal
computer technology has afforded modern society. It is an artificial
extension of human intellect which has advanced the effectiveness of
communication, and the quality of information gathering. This
technology will be the economic backbone for many communities far into
the next century.
Let us act today, so that tomorrow we will not have debates on the
disparity in life, liberty, and property of the information haves
versus the information have nots.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say, I understand the gentlewoman's concerns about rural and
underserved areas that they not be left off the information
superhighway. I share that concern very deeply because my own district
would qualify in that category.
Recognizing the importance of the information infrastructure grants
program for rural and underserved areas, we inserted in the bill
funding for the program at the 1996 level. We did not cut a penny off
the program from its current levels. At a time when most other programs
were being slashed in the bill, including most of the commerce
programs. We maintained the funding level for this program. This
amendment would seek a 47 percent increase for this program at the
expense of the Federal prison system and specifically the building of
new prisons.
Mr. Chairman, the need for new Federal prisons is clear. The Federal
prison system is currently suffering from dangerous overcrowding:
currently 23 percent overcrowded systemwide; 43 percent overcrowded at
the high security facilities, obviously the most dangerous. By the year
2001, overcrowding at the high security facilities would exceed 50
percent as a result of the growing population of convicted criminals
who are increasingly violent and subjected to longer sentences.
{time} 1230
We continue on a path of building two new prisons this year at the
higher security levels where we most desperately need relief from
overcrowding. This amendment would jeopardize that program and
seriously threaten the safety and security of the prison system and
surrounding communities where people obviously are residing.
The accountability gap still exists at the Federal level. Repeat
offenders continue to fill our prisons, and we want to ensure adequate
space is available to ensure that these felons are off our streets.
There is no parole at the Federal level, and therefore the need for
prison space is absolutely critical.
As much as I support the sentiments of the gentlewoman's amendment, I
have to say to her that I am strongly opposed to it for the reasons I
have said. One, we fully fund the information infrastructure grants
program; two, the gentlewoman's amendment would jeopardized the Federal
prison building program that we must continue. And so I urge a
rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from
Texas for her concern about rural educational programs and for
refocusing the direction of her amendment from reducing the funding for
our international broadcasting system which is so sorely needed.
However, I am impressed by the gentleman's remarks with regard to the
need for doing more in alleviating the overcrowding of our prison
system, and I hope the gentlewoman might find a better way of funding
the educational programs that she is so worthily advocating by her
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the
Committee on Science.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. It will increase the funding for valuable programs at the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration that will
help spur the development of an advanced information infrastructure for
the Nation.
I particularly commend the gentlewoman for her effort to provide
additional support for a proven NTIA program that is assisting
communities throughout the Nation to obtain connections to information
networks and to develop and enlarge the uses for public benefits of
networks, such as the Internet.
I refer to the NTIA Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program. This is a highly-competitive, merit-based grant
program that provides seed money for innovative, practical technology
projects throughout the United States. Many projects now in place to
connect rural and urban underserved Americans to information networks
would never have occurred without the Federal assistance provided by
this program.
The NTIA program provides matching grants to nonprofit organizations
such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and local governments. The
grants are used to fund projects that improve the quality of, and the
public access to, education, health care, and government services. The
grants are used for a variety of purposes. For example, connections to
networks are made possible by assistance with the purchase of
computers, video conferencing systems, and network routers.
But in addition to physical network connections, the grants program
assists communities in developing effective uses of networks by
supporting purchase of software for organizing and processing all kinds
of information; training in the use of equipment and software; and
purchase of communications services, such as Internet on-line services.
This NTIA grants program has generated enormous enthusiasm and has
been a recognized success. Over the 3 years of its existence, it has
generated more than 3,600 applications from across the Nation. And
because it is a matching grant program, the applications have spawned
hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments from local, State, and
private sector sources.
The importance of this program is in its potential to bring new
opportunities for learning and job creation to residents in isolated
areas and in underserved areas of the Nation by
[[Page H8274]]
unleashing the power of modern information technologies. Projects have
been supported that will improve educational opportunities for children
in farming communities and inner cities, will bring improved health
care to elderly patients without requiring them to leave their homes,
will provide worker training and new job opportunities in economically
depressed areas, and will improve public safety by supporting the
extension of emergency telephone service throughout the country.
Moreover, by serving as models that can be replicated in similar
communities across the United States, projects supported by this
program extend their effects far beyond the communities in which they
take place, and provide economic and social benefits to the Nation as a
whole.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment will strengthen a program that is helping
to develop a nationwide, interactive, multimedia information
infrastructure that is accessible to all citizens. The program has
effectively leveraged Federal resources through partnerships with non-
profit organizations in local communities.
The NTIA Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance
Program has proven its value and deserves a higher priority in this
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Might I inquire of the proponent of the
amendment if I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. No. If a member of the committee is controlling time in
opposition to the amendment, then he will have the right to close.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Then I will proceed at this time, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me try to emphasize very quickly, first of all, we are talking
about a $10 million increase out of a $395 million budgeting for
prisons. I would say that the choices need to be made. We have empty
beds available in various States who would welcome Federal prisoners.
This does not mean colleagues are soft on crime, but it does mean that
they can support the Texas A&M foundation grant that was to design a
way of extending information infrastructure into underserved
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The grass-roots models will be locally driven and managed, or maybe
they will be the Corpus Christi public library that will help them
receive the library information network or the Texas children's
hospital that helped to ensure medicine in the valley, a sophisticated
medicine in the valley in Texas, to rural communities by telemedicine.
This is a program that can effectively both save lives and create
opportunity for young lives.
I would ask my colleagues to invest in the future and support the
increase of $10 million for the National Telecommunications Information
Administration making the right choice.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, and
I shall not take the full time.
We have heard the arguments here. We have plenty of money in this
bill for the information infrastructure grant programs for rural areas.
I come from a rural area, and as chairman I saw to it there was
sufficient funding in this bill for that purpose. We provide the same
funding as last year, although we cut most of the other Commerce
Department programs.
Second, the gentlewoman's amendment would take the money for the
increase that she seeks from the Federal prison building program which
we desperately need, and this will put in jeopardy the building of two
new prisons in the next fiscal year.
So I urge a strong ``no'' vote to the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The amendment was rejected.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for
allowing me to have what I think is a very important debate on this
issue. We may never agree, but I do believe that we should certainly
have a consensus around the valuable role that technology and the
Internet will play in the lives of Americans.
I would offer to this committee and to authorizing committees that we
provide a vehicle for the Department of the Census to do a survey that
would inquire and determine who amongst us have been left out of access
to the superhighway and Internet. I believe that, if we would allow
additional funding for the Census Department to determine and survey,
that we would have an opportunity to determine the reality of the need.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I was under the understanding that we are
under a set of amendment that are controlled by the rule of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The gentlewoman
from Texas moved to strike the last word. The Chairman asked if there
was objection. When there was no objection, the Chair recognized her
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. All right. I withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas will continue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be concluding.
I had asked to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers], and I would be happy to do that with him regarding my
concern about determining who has been left out of the net of the
Internet. My suggestion is that the Department of Census would be an
appropriate vehicle in order for us to insure, as I know that the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and certainly the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] would welcome that all of us are involved
in the superhighway. This is a proposal that I hope that we will have
an opportunity to engage in further discussions and to provide the
Bureau of the Census with the resources to gather information on
computer use in the United States.
Might I inquire of the time that I have, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman cannot yield blocks of time when she
moves to strike the last word. The gentlewoman from Texas can stand and
yield to the gentlewoman, but she cannot allocate a set amount of time
to her.
If the gentlewoman wishes to remain standing, she may then yield
during her presentation to someone else for the opportunity to make a
point.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is what I am seeking to
do; is that appropriate?
The CHAIRMAN. If there is a Member on the floor seeking to have the
gentlewoman from Texas yield, that may occur.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will now, to the gentlewoman from
California.
Mr. Chairman, might I provide her with a certain amount of time?
The CHAIRMAN. No, the gentlewoman may not allocate time and then sit
down. She may simply yield to the gentlewoman from California on her
own time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I really would like to thank
the gentlewoman from Texas and to really applaud her on her leadership
in this area.
It is very important that I stand before my colleagues to strongly
support her amendment and the increased funding for the National
Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration. We know how
important this is
[[Page H8275]]
for our children, for the growth and the information highway that is
much needed for the educational components of our schools. I am in
strong support of this.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether or not
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is able to enter into a
colloquy, and I will conclude by simply saying that it is important
that the access to the superhighway be given to all of our constituents
across the Nation.
I am gratified for the support of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown] on recognizing as a ranking member of the Committee on Science.
I would only offer that we should work to have the right data. I think
that, if we allow the Bureau of the Census to do its survey of who has
access and who does not, this Congress would be moved to act to provide
additional funding to ensure that we train people and as well provide
the resources for this kind of technology to go into our rule and as
well our urban centers.
amendment offered by mr. gekas
Mr. GEKAS. 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. Gekas: Page 116, after line 2, add
the following new section:
Sec. 615. (a) Chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 1310 the following new
section:
``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations
``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal
year does not become law prior to the beginning of such
fiscal year or a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out
of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and
out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and
funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any project
or activity for which funds were provided in the preceding
fiscal year--
``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriations Act for
such preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for
such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such
preceding fiscal year--
``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of
operations not in excess of the lower of--
``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular
appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for
the preceding fiscal year,
``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations
provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint
resolution making continuing appropriations for such
preceding fiscal year,
``(C) the rate of operations provided for in the House or
Senate passed appropriation bill for the fiscal year in
question, except that the lower of these two versions shall
be ignored for any project or activity for which there is a
budget request if no funding is provided for that project or
activity in either version,
``(D) the rate provided in the budget submission of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, for the fiscal year in question, or
``(E) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the
most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for part of that fiscal year.
``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this
section for a project or activity shall be available for the
period beginning with the first day of a lapse in
appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
``(A) the date on which the applicable regular
appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether
or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a
continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as
the case may be, or
``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or
authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms
and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made
or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or
authority granted for such project or activity under current
law.
``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal
year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or
expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the
portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies to
such project or activity.
``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any
fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a
regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making
continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year
providing for such project or activity for such period
becomes law.
``(e) No appropriation is made by this section for a fiscal
year for any project or activity for which there is no
authorization of appropriations for such fiscal year.
``(f) This section shall not apply to a project or activity
during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other
than an authorization of appropriations)--
``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or
grants authority for such project or activity to continue for
such period, or
``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be
made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall
be granted for such project or activity to continue for such
period.
``(g) For purposes of this section, the term `regular
appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill
making appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or
granting authority, for any of the following categories of
projects and activities:
``(1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies
programs.
``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and related agencies.
``(3) The Department of Defense.
``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other
activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of
the District.
``(5) The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies.
``(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices.
``(7) Energy and water development.
``(8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
``(9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
``(10) Military construction.
``(11) The Department of Transportation and related
agencies.
``(12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service,
the Executive Office of the President, and certain
independent agencies.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Gekas
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, only seven legislative work weeks are left until our
October 4 target adjournment date. Significant appropriations work
remains, and the specter of Government shutdown and rancorous, time-
consuming debate over CR's has raised its head. The country cannot
afford another drawn-out debate on funding levels while Government
offices gather cobwebs.
During the two Federal Government shutdowns this past winter,
constituents found out the hard way what Washington gridlock means.
They couldn't get passports or some veterans benefits or even get
questions answered about Social Security and many other services on
which they depend. At the same time, the cost to the taxpayers of lost
productivity was enormous.
In my State, the government does not shut down over budget wrangling.
Instead, Wisconsin has in place a common-sense plan which maintains
government operations while the budget goes through the legislative
process. I have introduced legislation which would set this Wisconsin
plan into Federal law.
This Gekas amendment is similar to my bill, H.R. 2965, the Keep
Government Open Act, which would prevent a Federal shut down from
occurring by establishing an automatic continuing resolution. Although
my bill--like the Wisconsin plan--maintains current Government funding
unchanged from last year's levels, while Mr. Gekas' plan is somewhat
more complex, the essential concepts are the same.
With this proposal--like H.R. 2965--we can permanently avert
Government shutdown crises and debilitative CR fights. Removing the
pressure and rhetoric that build as part of the appropriations process
would allow us to focus on substance and good public policy. I commend
the gentleman from Pennsylvania and urge a ``yea'' vote on this
amendment.
point of order
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``no amendment to a
general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing
law.''
{time} 1245
Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, the amendment proposes to make
permanent changes to chapter 13 of title XXXI of the U.S. Code and
therefore it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has raised a point of order. Does any
Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
[[Page H8276]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is
recognized on the point of order.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, for a long while now, almost every term
since 1988 or 1989, I have introduced a bill which would constitute
instant replay of last year's budget if no budget has been enacted by
September 30. This legislation, this main legislation about which we
are talking, would cause no problem for appropriators because their
figures, if lower than last year's budget, would go into effect both in
the House or in the Senate version of those appropriations. Thus, we
would have the best of all worlds.
On September 30 if no budget has been enacted, the next day there
will be an instant replay of last year's numbers or the current House
numbers or the current Senate numbers, whichever is lowest. Thus, the
appropriators can go along their merry way in doing their job without
being hampered by the fact that instant replay would occur.
Mr. Chairman, here is where the parliamentary battle ensues. This
bill of mine, to which I refer, was referred to the Committee on
Appropriations. That makes it part and parcel of what the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is attempting to do here with the
appropriation bills under his control. It means that it does not vary
from the concept of appropriations, nor from the duty and right of the
appropriators to go about their business in the current legislation. It
is an appropriation bill, properly referred to the Committee on
Appropriations.
Further, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not violate any of the
appropriations or any of the legislative policy contained in the
current legislation. It merely serves to continue existing
appropriations at lower figures. Therefore, it does not in any way
affect or appropriate monies. All it does is continue existing
appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, it is a method which will serve to end Government
shutdowns forever. We will never have another shutdown of Government if
this legislation is adopted. If on September 30 we do not have a
budget, the next day a new budget comes into play mirroring last year's
budget, or the lowest figures that are extant to that day. At the end
of a CR, a continuing resolution, the same thing would happen.
If the Congress enacts a CR and the President signs it for, say, 3
weeks, at the end of that 3-week period, again, instant replay would
occur the following day after the expiration of that CR on the same
basis, of the lowest figures.
This means that on the point of order, that an appropriation bill
that does not change the policy of the appropriators and enhances their
ability to be triumphant in their figures should be accorded the right
of continuing as an amendment to this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania violates
clause 2 of rule 21 by legislating on a general appropriation bill.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania previously offered this amendment on
July 17, 1996. The Chair sustained a point of order against the
amendment at that time, as the Chair will again today. However, in so
doing, the Chair would point out that the gentleman's invocation on
that prior occasion of the ``works in progress exception'' as a defense
to the point of order against his amendment was inapposite. That
principle is a defense to a point of order against an unauthorized
appropriation rather than to legislating on an appropriation bill.
For the reasons stated on July 17, 1996, the point of order is
sustained and the amendment is not in order.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. GEKAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, of what significance is it that the
legislation was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, the
original bill which now this amendment reflects?
The CHAIRMAN. The fact that legislation is separately within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations does not necessarily
make it appropriate for this general appropriation bill at this time.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
amendment offered by mr. ganske
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement
this morning, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ganske: Page 116, after line 2,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 615. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds to Issue Certain
Patents.--None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used by the Patent and Trademark Office to issue a patent
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that the patent is
for any invention or discovery of a technique, method, or
process for performing a surgical procedure (defined as a
treatment for curing or preventing disease, injury, illness,
disorder, or deformity by operative methods, in which human
tissue is cut, burned, or vaporized by the use of any
mechanical means, laser, or ionizing radiation, or the
penetration of the skin or body orifice by any means),
performing a medical procedure (defined as a nonsurgical,
nondiagnostic procedure for curing or preventing a disease,
injury, illness, disorder, or deformity), or making a medical
diagnosis (defined as the identification of a medical
condition or a disease or disorder of a body).
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to the issuance of a patent when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the patent is for a machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or improvement thereof, that is itself
patentable subject matter, and the technique, method, or
process referred to in subsection (a) is performed by or is a
necessary component of the machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter; or
(2) the patent is for a new use of a composition of matter
or biotechnological process.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the agreement of Tuesday, July 23, 1996,
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] will be recognized for 10 minutes
in support of his amendment, and a Member opposed will be recognized
for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, imagine if someone held a patent on taking a patient's
temperature by placing a thermometer under the tongue, and charged a
royalty of $1 each time this was done. Imagine somebody downstairs in
the House dining room choking on a piece of steak and the person who
uses the Heimlich maneuver on the victim receives a bill from Dr.
Heimlich for using this procedure.
For more than a century the Patent Office refused to grant patents on
methods of treating the sick but did start issuing these patents in the
1950's. In recent years patent holders have started enforcing these
patents either by excluding others from using the procedure or charging
a licensing fee. The Patent Office now estimates it issues more than
100 medical procedure patents per month.
My amendment borrows from and improves the Medical Procedure
Innovation and Affordability Act, which has over 130 House cosponsors.
This amendment would prohibit the Patent Office from using funds
appropriated in this bill to issue these types of patents. These
patents are causing real problems.
Dartmouth Medical School recently spent 3 years and nearly $500,000
in legal fees defending its right to perform cataract operations,
because a surgeon patented cataract operations and was seeking up to
$10,000 in royalties per clinic eye surgeon.
If these procedure patents and their attempted enforcement continue,
health care costs are going to skyrocket. More importantly, owners of
patented procedures with control can use them and potentially limit the
widespread availability of critical medical advances.
I trained in surgery with Dr. Joseph Murray of Boston who did the
world's first successful kidney transplant. Dr. Murray did not run out
and get a patent on kidney transplants. He would have thought this was
against a fundamental tenet of medical ethics that
[[Page H8277]]
admonishes the physician to teach and share freely medical advances for
the benefit of mankind.
I am offering this amendment to protect patients, not physicians. If
anything, this bill is in direct conflict with physicians' financial
interests. After all, it is doctors who are most likely to benefit
financially from obtaining and enforcing medical procedure patents.
Further, it is not physicians who would ultimately bear the cost of
patent royalties. It is patients and others, such as local and Federal
governments and insurers, who pay for health care. Ultimately, it is
the consumer who would pay in the form of higher taxes, more premiums,
so a few physicians could enrich themselves.
Physicians do not need incentives provided by patent law as a
stimulus to innovation. Just look at the medical journals and Members
will note there is no shortage of innovation and research going on.
Physicians should not get windfall profits at the expense of patients.
I would encourage possible opponents of this bill to carefully
examine the language of this amendment. The amendment specifies: All
presently patentable new drugs will remain patentable; all presently
patentable machinery and devices for treating and diagnosing disease
will remain patentable; all presently patentable biologic products will
remain patentable; all presently patentable new uses for nonpatentable
drugs and biological products will remain patentable. I even added an
additional exception for biotechnological process to make absolutely
clear that this amendment does not, let me repeat, does not prohibit
patents on gene therapy or other similar procedures.
I urge Members' support for these five reasons:
No. 1, patient access to new surgical and medical procedures is being
threatened by medical patents;
No. 2, medical patents permit patent owners to charge monopoly prices
and contribute to our Nation's health care costs;
No. 3, physicians have an obligation to share their knowledge and
skills for the benefit of humanity;
No. 4, medical patents are not necessary for the advancement of
medicine. Did Oxner, the Mayo brothers, Lahey, or DeBakey need patents
to advance medical knowledge?
And No. 5, 80 countries around the world, including most of Europe,
expressly prohibit medical patents. The United States is virtually
alone in the world in granting monopoly rights to these procedures.
Mr. Chairman, as a physician for 20 years, I can tell the Members
first hand that the Patent Office is ill-equipped to evaluate the
novelty of medical procedures. As long as patents on medical procedures
continue, there will be a chilling effect on the free exchange of
medical advances.
If these procedure patents proliferate and are enforced, the patent
laws will have the opposite effect of what they were designed for. We
will see fewer, not more, new medical advances for the benefit of
citizens.
Please vote for this amendment. Where would surgery be today if Louis
Pasteur had sought a patent on the 15-minute scrub?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition?
Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment, and I
do so on a procedural basis. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why there
is a rule of this House that precludes an appropriating committee from
authorizing during an appropriating bill. The reason for that is this
type of an amendment. This is a very complicated issue that needs to
have hearings and to work is way through the authorizing process of
this body.
Here we are on an appropriations bill, almost out of the clear blue,
having to decide or vote on an issue that is extremely complicated
about which I am not aware of any hearings. I have no factual basis
upon which to make my own judgment about whether or not this is a good
idea. It very well may be. But it needs to go through the process.
Mr. Chairman, this is a policy issue, and should be decided through
the authorization process, not this quick process, that is, the
appropriations process. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House,
the authorizing committee, is, I understand, studying the issue. It has
already held hearings on the gentleman's legislation.
The gentleman is really attempting to bypass the authorization
process by tacking this legislation onto this appropriations bill. The
chairman of the authorization committee and the ranking member of the
authorization subcommittee as well as the administration, all oppose
the Ganske amendment on the appropriations bill.
I do not think it would be wise for the House to rush forward on such
a very significant policy issue without proper study, discussion, and
going through the regular channels. This is not the proper forum to
address such a complicated and important policy issue. We need to let
the authorizers do their job, and they have told me that.
As an appropriations subcommittee chairman, I know there is one rule,
unspoken almost, around here. When an authorizing committee chairman
tells you, do not authorize in your appropriations bill on my subject,
you do not do it. So I am standing here as the subcommittee
appropriation chairman, with the authorization chairman sitting beside
me saying do not let this happen, and I am having to stand here and say
no.
So I oppose the amendment for those reasons, although the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] has brought up a very important subject that
needs to be addressed by the authorization committee, as is being done.
I commend him for that.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], chairman of the subcommittee
on the Committee on the Judiciary with this subject matter in his
jurisdiction.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment. The subject matter of this amendment is patent law and it is
based on an earlier legislative proposal, H.R. 1127. Both the subject
matter of patents and H.R. 1127 are within the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee. The effect of this amendment is to strip the
Judiciary Committee of its jurisdiction over this issue by attempting
to legislate on this appropriations bill. For this reason alone this
amendment should be rejected.
In addition, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property, which I chair, held a hearing on H.R. 1127, the legislation
on which this amendment is based. During that hearing, a representative
of the Patent and Trademark Office suggested that the PTO may well be
able to address the issues raised by the legislation by modifying their
internal, administrative procedures. I subsequently wrote to the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and requested that the PTO hold
hearings on this issue.
Pursuant to my request the PTO conducted a public hearing on issues
related to patenting of medical procedures. Interested parties were
given the opportunity to comment and offer suggestions for
improvements. The PTO is now analyzing these comments and preparing to
address the problems which are identified. There is a very good chance
that this problem may be solved administratively for which the
gentleman from Iowa should take full credit. I believe that this is the
appropriate response and accordingly urge the rejection of this
amendment.
I should state that this amendment is opposed by the U.S. Department
of Commerce, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the
Intellectual Property Owners, the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
the American Bar Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America.
I believe that a reasonable problem has been pointed out by the
gentleman from Iowa, and I believe that it is important to find out the
best way that we can solve it, but I do not think it should be done on
an appropriation bill with short notice.
{time} 1300
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
[[Page H8278]]
(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to agree with what the gentleman
had to say.
Mr. Chairman, I tell this body that the gentleman from California is
being very humble. He has worked very hard on this issue, and so has
the Department of Commerce. We have a letter. Everything is moving. I
hope we can move forward and put this to bed.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Ganske] for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose if I were an experienced legislator this
would seem complex, but since I am just a dentist who has practiced for
the last 30 years, it seems sort of simple. What we are basically
asking this body to do, and I urge Members to do this with every bone
in my body, is pass this amendment for the American people. What we
have here is a simple problem that simply needs to be corrected. What
is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. All of my adult life I
have been taught that as a health care provider, I should be very
willing to share any knowledge I have on behalf of the patient. I know
not to do that is not just unethical but it is immoral. What we are
trying to do is to correct a problem in this country before it gets out
of proportion and harms the very people who are providing care because
there will be so much confusion, but most importantly because it harms
the patient.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I likewise rise in opposition to this
amendment and echo the sentiments expressed by a number of speakers.
This simply is not the appropriate bill. This is not the appropriate
forum to decide this issue. In response to the last speaker, whether it
is a simple issue or a complex issue, I do not know whether that is
really the point. The fact is, it is a very controversial issue and
should best be decided by the authorizing committee. I am advised--and
again because this is an appropriations committee, not an authorizing
committee and we do not get into these things in substance like this--
that there are very serious concerns raised by representatives of the
biotech industry and other areas in industry about the effect that this
amendment could have on the incentives which our system now has for
innovative new research procedures.
In any event, all of those issues are for consideration by an
authorizing committee, and because controversy does surround it, I
think that is the better forum.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. Chairman, as I was watching the debate on TV and came over from
my office, I know that we have heard from a number of different outside
industry groups that in fact this amendment takes care of some of the
concerns that they have. There is an exception here in this bill that
is labeled as such, and there is an exception for the patient when
there is a new use of a composition of matter or biotechnological
process. It is unfortunate that the Committee on the Judiciary has not
moved on this. This is an important issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out to my friend that while there is an exemption that has been
created for the composition of matter, the truth of the matter is that
that still does not, for instance, provide the necessary scientific
protections for companies that do not fall under that specific
exemption.
There are, for instance, new advancements in Hodgkin's disease using
fetal matter from pigs that would fall outside of this language.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, the example that my colleague from
Massachusetts is citing is exempted. It is the new use of a
compositional material. It is specifically excluded in the amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like my friend
from Massachusetts to respond to the question that the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Ganske] raised in his opening statement about the Heimlich
maneuver. Does the gentleman think that that should be patented and get
a bill for that? That is one of the things that this goes against.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield further, the gentleman from Iowa and I have had discussions about
this. I am in favor of the general thrust of his legislation. I just
think it is flawed in a manner that we ought to try to fix.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ganske
amendment. Regardless of the merits of what he is trying to achieve, I
feel very strongly that the language is far too broad. The broad
implications of the language threaten to invalidate up to one-third of
all the biotech patents in the United States. When we see some of the
tremendous potential for research in the development of new gene
therapies through biotechnology that hold the promise of finding cures
to many of the diseases we face such as cystic fibrosis, AIDS as well
as Alzheimer's, we cannot put in place an impediment that restricts the
investment and research which can hold the promise to cures to these.
Unfortunately I feel that the way that the Ganske amendment is drafted,
it will provide that disincentive for investment in this emerging field
which will not serve the interests of the people and the interests of
the health of people of this country.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I make an inquiry as to how much time
remains in debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). The gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Ganske] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate goes back down to one
of the core issues in our country, whether a physician, no matter what
particular oath they took, whether or not they are going to follow that
oath, nowhere should a medical procedure get in the way of offering
care to any other patient. I think most people will agree with that.
If this bill is flawed in any way, that can be corrected. But the
intent of this bill and the necessity of this bill demand that we pass
this today. There are people who are not receiving the benefit of the
skills of providers and health providers who have dedicated their life
because of patent infringement attempts. So I would beg my colleagues
to look, to support the healing professionals by allowing them to do
what they have committed their lives to do, which is to offer care, not
limited by someone's greed or someone's selfishness.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
thank the chairman of the full committee for the excellent efforts that
he is making thus far in this legislation. I also want to compliment
Mr. Ganske on the attempts that he is making to try to fix a problem.
The trouble is that the solution that he has created is just far too
broad.
I agree with the previous speaker that we ought not to be trying to
deny anyone reasonable health care, we ought not to be allowing patents
for certain medical procedures. But the truth is that the way this
amendment is written, it would incorporate vast areas of the
biotechnology field and
[[Page H8279]]
companies that are coming up with innovative and creative solutions.
I think that if the gentleman were willing to work with us in a
fashion that ended up providing protections against the procedures that
he is concerned about without incorporating, at the same time, the
gutting of the ability of these biotechnology companies to be able to
move forward on their advancements, that we in fact could come together
with a reasonable amendment that everybody in this Chamber would be
happy to support, and I would look forward to working with the
gentleman to accomplish such a task.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Ganske
amendment. I commend the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this issue
forward.
I know that many breakthroughs that have helped many of my patients
in the past could possibly not have accrued to their benefit if doctors
were out there patenting procedures. I think it is wrong for them to be
doing that. I wholeheartedly commend the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would observe that there is 1
minute remaining on each side. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]
has the right to close.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the list of cosponsors of the
original bill that this is based on, that is, modified off the original
medical patents bill, includes such colleagues as Chairman Archer,
DeFazio, DeLay, Frank, Hyde, Kasich, and Waxman.
Let me answer a few of the criticisms and go back over again. Let me
repeat, the amendment is narrowly drawn. It prevents procedure patents,
things like surgeons being able to do an appendectomy or surgeons being
able to do a cataract operation. Can my colleagues just imagine looking
in the Yellow Pages and having to look up which surgeon has the
franchise to do an appendectomy?
This bill specifically says, all presently patentable new drugs will
remain patentable, all presently patentable machinery and devices for
treating and diagnosing disease will remain patentable, all presently
patentable biologic products will remain patentable, all presently
patentable new uses of nonpatentable drugs and biologic products will
remain patentable.
This takes care of the criticism. We have moved this forward now
because we have not had cooperation from the industry.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, many people, and there is no disagreement
in this Chamber that the substance of what the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Ganske] is trying to do makes a lot of sense, but as has been pointed
out by a number of colleagues, and I will reiterate and focus in on it,
there are clearly cases where the language of this amendment is broader
than the intent. It will absolutely include certain biotechnology
therapies that were under development that already exist. Whether we
like it or not, the companies that do this invest sometimes tens and
even hundreds of millions of dollars. If they cannot be provided with a
patent for that protection, they just will not develop those lifesaving
drugs.
I urge the defeat of the Ganske amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is
recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the debate here has demonstrated what I
just said. This is too complicated for us to deal with in an
appropriations bill times 10. We have biotechnology involved, doctors'
rights, medicine, and technical advice in every aspect.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] has succeeded, I think, in big
measure here by bringing this matter to our attention. The chairman of
the authorizing subcommittee says, ``Don't pass this on an
appropriations bill; give us a chance to have our hearings, which we
are doing.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment by Dr. Ganske.
I believe he is raising an extremely important issue and I support
the intent of his amendment to disallow the issuance of patents for
medical procedures such as kidney transplants. However, this is a
complicated issue that deserves greater consideration than 10 minutes
of debate on an appropriations bill.
It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee is currently
reviewing the issue of patents for medical procedures. That is the
correct forum for this debate.
Hearings should be held. Testimony should be taken and the
subcommittee and full committee should have the opportunity to mark up
legislation. A bill should be brought to the House for consideration
only after these steps have been taken.
Lastly, greater care needs to be taken to ensure that medical
advances in the field of biotechnology are not adversely affected by
this legislation. The biotechnology industry is one of our country's
greatest resources. We need to tread lightly in areas that could stifle
the potential of this industry, because of the benefits it can bring to
the health and welfare of the American people.
I commend Dr. Ganske for bringing this issue forward and hope that we
will have the opportunity to work together in the future to develop
bipartisan legislation that addresses the need to prevent medical
procedure patents.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of
all thank Mr. Ganske for his willingness to work with me and my staff
in making some improvements to the text of this amendment. The
gentleman from Iowa has been very responsive to the concerns I have
raised regarding the unintended harmful consequences the amendment
would have on the biotechnology industry. And although we have made
significant progress in the past 2 days, I must still rise in
opposition to this amendment.
I agree with the underlying fundamental goal of this amendment: to
limit the liability of physicians who use patented medical procedures--
in order to improve the lives and health of their patients--from being
sued for royalty fees or, even worse, be threatened with an injunction
against using the procedures. This goal could be achieved by placing a
limitation on enforcement of these patents or by giving blanket
immunity to physicians who may use these procedures. If this were done,
I think we would all be on the same page.
However, the approach this amendment takes is to ban all medical
procedure patents first, and then creates two somewhat vague
exceptions. Only if a patent falls within these two exceptions can it
be issued. This is a failed approach. It has been likened to cutting
one's fingernails with a chainsaw.
I am troubled by this approach first of all because this would be
establishing a dangerous precedent by making drastic changes in patent
law, to be considered for the first time on the House floor during
debate on an appropriations bill. But more importantly, I oppose this
amendment because the two exceptions that would continue to allow the
issuance of medical patent procedures would not cover all situations
where innovative science and research in the biotechnology field
creates new medical therapies that have the potential of curing costly,
deadly diseases.
Securing a patent for the use of medical drugs, therapies, and
diagnosis of disease is absolutely crucial for the biotechnology
industry. Without patents, biotechnology companies cannot secure the
capital investments needed to spawn the research to bring these uses to
market. This amendment jeopardizes the innovation of the
biotechnological industry and should therefore be soundly defeated.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Ganske amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gankse
amendment.
A very similar measure introduced by the gentleman from Iowa was the
subject of a lengthy hearing before the Intellectual Property
Subcommittee. It became very clear during that hearing that this
measure does not, as the gentleman undoubtedly intends, create a narrow
solution for a narrow problem. This amendment raises extremely complex
issues relating to patent law. And in fact, this amendment
unintentionally jeopardizes whole categories of biomedical research.
We have no business legislating radical changes in U.S. patent law on
an appropriations bill. This amendment effectively strips the Judiciary
Committee of its jurisdiction over this issue. But this is not just a
jurisdictional quibble. This amendment represents very bad intellectual
property law, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
We are not only bypassing the Judiciary Committee with this
amendment, but we are also engaging in a very hasty process that does
not bode well for developing good policy.
[[Page H8280]]
I want to point out that we just saw the most recent draft of this
amendment late yesterday afternoon. This revision, I am sure, is
intended to address the concerns raised about biomedical research, but
the biotechnology research community continues to raise objections
about the impact of this bill on medical devices or diagnostics and on
patents for medical therapy or medical procedures. This amendment
affects literally billions of dollars in research on deadly diseases,
and it cannot be written hastily or without extremely careful
consideration of its impact.
I also want to point out that our hearing on this issue established
that the problems identified by the medical profession relating to
patents on medical and surgical procedures can be solved by the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office through steps that are less drastic than
excluding these inventions from patent protection and eliminating the
incentives to invest in beneficial and cost-effective new medical and
surgical procedures. In fact, the Patent Office has already conducted a
public hearing in order to devise these steps.
Are you willing to tell the women of this country that you took away
the financial incentive for promising research relating to metastatic
breast cancer? The patent system has worked well to provide incentives
for private investment in biotechnology research. Don't undermine those
incentives with this hastily crafted amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Ganske] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle are very troubled about the reductions in funding
provided in this bill for the Maritime Administration which will
adversely affect the six State maritime academies located in New York,
California, Texas, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Maine. The
administration requested $9.3 million for the academies which
represents level funding since 1989. A Federal contribution of $9.3
million represents a small fraction of the academies' funding.
{time} 1315
In fact, even though 89 percent of their funding comes from student
tuition and State support, the State maritime academies produce 75
percent of our Nation's licensed Merchant Marine officers, the young
men and women who enter the maritime industry and who activate the
ready reserve force in national emergencies requiring sealift.
Without a doubt, assisting the State schools to train Merchant
Marines is a cost-efficient way to produce the U.S. crews we need for
our national security. A portion of the funds derived from the sale or
disposal of ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet are intended to
be used for training and other expenses at the State maritime
academies.
However, the reality is that no ships have been scrapped from the
NDRF for more than 2 years because of legal disputes relating to
certain hazardous materials on some of these ships. Because this
dispute has made it virtually impossible to sell NDRF vessels in
foreign countries, an intended source of funding is unavailable to the
States' academies.
I must also add, Mr. Chairman, even if two academy ships were to be
funded under the Department of Defense's ready reserve force, it would
in no way compensate for the budget cuts in this bill.
Can the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of the
subcommittee provide us some assurance that if NDRF ships continue to
be ineligible for scrapping, he will work with the Senate to ensure
that the Maritime Administration has the flexibility it needs to
provide adequate funding for the State academies?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from several of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about funding for the
State maritime academies. As the gentlewoman knows, there are 65 ships
ready to scrap and if a way could be worked out to allow these ships to
be scrapped, the State maritime academies would be the beneficiaries of
25 percent of the proceeds.
In addition, if the Maritime Administrator's request is agreed to,
with respect to the ready reserve force, there would be just three
ships to support under this account. But as we move into conference
with the Senate on this bill and we receive additional clarification
about the availability of these and other resources for the State
academies, I will work with the gentlewoman and with the other Members
concerned on this issue to try to address their concerns and to see
what we can work out with the Senate on this important issue.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] very much. His assistance and leadership on
these issues is greatly appreciated.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express serious concern over
the funding levels for maritime academies contained in this bill. It is
essential that maritime academies are level-funded at $9.3 million in
order to effectively carry out their mission.
This is a very modest investment by the Federal Government for
schools that produce 75 percent of our Nation's merchant marine
officers. Additionally, these academies are an essential component to
preserving our Nation's national security by manning our Defense
Sealift Contingency Force and maintaining vessels in our ready Reserve
fleet.
One of these academies is the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Serving
the tristate area of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island,
Massachusetts Maritime Academy produces more U.S. Navy admirals than
any other college or university outside of Annapolis. Currently, the
proud and honorable Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Adm.
William J. Flanagan, Jr., class of 1964, is a distinguished alumnus.
Additionally, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy is home port to the
training vessel, Patriot State, a 20,000-horsepower, 547-foot
steamship, which prepares our young men and women for a distinguished
career in this Nation's merchant marine. The Patriot State is a ready
Reserve vessel as designed by MARAD. The Federal Government contributes
to the operation of the Patriot State. If this Nation's maritime
academies are not level-funded, the Patriot State will not be fueled
and ready for our Reserve fleet.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, in both appreciation for the
gentlewoman yielding and my colleague for California, I will be very
brief.
State maritime academies like Massachusetts Maritime operate their
ready Reserve ships at one-third of that expended by the Federal
Government to maintain similar vessels in a like readiness status.
These academies provide a high return on the small Federal investment.
Graduates of the six State maritime academies all secure employment
within 3 months of graduation. This is a record we should be proud of.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chair to work with the other body and the
conference committee to level-fund this Nation's maritime academies.
This is an investment in our future and our security.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
[[Page H8281]]
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to rehash all that. I am
going to say, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from New York and
the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. It does
not matter if the maritime academy is in California, Massachusetts, or
where, they provide a valuable resource.
I would also ask the Chairman when they look at scrapping these U.S.
ships that they give preference to U.S. shipyards. Quite often there is
a problem with older ships having asbestos, and so on, and they decline
to do that. I think that would be in our best interest.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the colloquy that I wish to engage the
chairman in involves the NOAA issue affecting Florida and the Nation.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would like to commend the chairman
for the work of his subcommittee to ensure that needed resources are
being dedicated to understanding the El Nino phenomenon, how we can
improve our predictive capabilities, and understanding the full
implications of these near- and mid-term climactic events on precious
agriculture and vulnerable areas. Your committee report includes
language that provides that some of the funding increases provided in
the Climate and Global Change Program is intended to expand the
International Research Institute program to include regional
application centers.
Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman
is correct. The bill includes an overall increase for the Climate and
Global Change Program, which is intended to be used to expand both the
El Nino research program and the Health of the Atmosphere Program.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this language is
intended to refer to the regional application centers being developed
now as a statewide consortium among Florida's top four research
universities, which have developed some unique technology for regional
modeling and predictive work in this regard. Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct. The committee intends that NOAA
make El Nino research a priority and use some of the funds within this
account to expand the program to include regional application centers,
like the proposal that the gentleman has mentioned and has been
endorsed by the Florida delegation.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been extremely thoughtful
and very supportive. I thank the gentleman. The work on El Nino, like
the proposal from the Florida consortium, is a high priority for NOAA,
your committee, and the entire Florida congressional delegation. I am
encouraged by your support of statements today and the intent of the
committee.
amendment offered by mr. gutknecht
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 28.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht: Page 116, after line 2,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 615. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1.9 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will be recognized
for 10 minutes in support of his amendment, and a Member opposed will
be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as one of my favorite presidents observed, well, here
we go again. This is the 1.9 percent across-the-board reduction.
Just to set the stage again so Members understand how this amendment
came about, we were rightly criticized by some of our friends on the
other side of the aisle when we passed the joint budget resolution
conference committee report, in which we increased discretionary
spending by about $4.1 billion more than the House-passed version of
this budget resolution.
Passing a balanced budget, ultimately balancing the people's books,
is not some mean-spirited, green eye-shaded accounting exercise. It
really is about preserving the American dream for our children.
Balancing the budget is not something that we do next year or we do 2
years from now or we do 3 years from now or 6 years from now. It is
what we do every day on every appropriation bill that makes the
difference, and that is why in good faith I am offering this amendment.
This is not some slap at the Committee on Appropriations or our own
leadership. I think the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has done
an excellent job with his appropriations subcommittee. I think all the
appropriations subcommittees have done an excellent job. But we are
going to increase discretionary spending in this cycle by about $4.1
billion more than the House originally agreed to. And the way we can
recover that $4.1 billion is by offering a 1.9 percent reduction
across-the-board on all the remaining appropriation bills.
So to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and others, I just
want to say that I think you have done a good job, but I think this is
a perfecting amendment to help the House recover its fumble. I would
hope that Members would join me in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce every discretionary
appropriation in this bill by 1.9 percent. It has been offered on at
least five prior appropriations bills and has been defeated on all of
them. I would hope we would keep the string alive.
This amendment would undermine the very initiatives we are trying to
achieve in the bill. In the Department of Justice, it would undo the
very things we are trying to do. One, in the Drug Enforcement
Administration, we have increased funding to $1.03 billion, $167
million above last year, $20 million over the President's request,
including a $75 million source country interdiction initiative and a
$56 million Southwest border initiative where 70 percent of our drugs
come into the country and goes to our teenagers. This amendment would
remove the increase over the President and hurt the efforts to rekindle
the war on drugs which this administration, I think, has allowed to
dwindle.
In the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the war on illegal
aliens, the war to control the border, the bill provides $2.2 billion,
$443 million over last year, $30 million over the President's request,
and 1,100 new Border Patrol agents. Everyone says we desperately need
them. This amendment would reduce the appropriation by $41 million, and
take it below what the President requested of the Congress. The
amendment would reduce the FBI by $52 million.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, the very thrust of this bill is to control
the borders, control crime, control drugs, and control teenage
violence. This amendment does damage to those four initiatives. That is
the reason I oppose it. It would reduce State and local law enforcement
by $71 million, including the Byrne grants, which goes to local
communities, as we all know, to help them fight crime in their
communities and the local law enforcement block grant, a new program
that Congress initiated to help local communities fight crime as they
see it. It would reduce COPS
[[Page H8282]]
and the truth in sentencing State prison grants to help States build
the prisons and keep their prisoners in jail 85 percent of their
sentence.
In other areas of the bill where we have already taken reductions to
make room for the increases in law enforcement, the additional
percentage reductions would be very problematic. In the State
Department, it would take an additional $84 million, which is double
the reduction we have already taken in the bill for the State
Department. Out of USIA, it would take an additional $20 million, with
nowhere to take it except reductions in force and reductions in Voice
of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Marti, and Radio Free Asia.
In the Commerce Department, it would take an additional $68 million
out of NOAA and the Census and the International Trade Administration,
all of which we have tried to prioritize as important for the Nation.
In the Small Business Administration, a $2.5 million reduction would be
had by this amendment, which translates into $125 million less in small
business loans.
{time} 1330
Overall, this amendment undermines the initiatives we have tried to
undertake in law enforcement, in the war on crime and drugs, and
gaining control of our borders.
In addition, it imposes much larger reductions in areas where we have
already taken reductions, with serious impacts on our ability to carry
on diplomacy and to carry out necessary functions like the census and
our trade enforcement functions.
As a result, I would hope the body would reject this amendment, and I
ask my colleagues to do just that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the gentleman from
Kentucky speak of the reductions that would be brought forward. What I
would ask those who are listening to this debate today is to consider
the following: Wherever we work, whatever we do, could we not, through
efficiency and better planning and good insight, reduce the costs of
what we are doing or increase the efficiency with which we do it, or
save 2 percent of the amount of time that it takes us to do it? Could
we not do that?
The trouble is, inside Washington we do not believe that that is
possible. The real fact is that we can save a whole lot more than 1.9
percent. Outside of Washington, DC, outside of the thought process that
goes on here, in everyday America, people are doing that very thing.
This is not a cynical attempt to make a point. The fact is, the
largess of our Federal bureaucracy is killing our future. The
Republican Congress made a commitment to this country. They fumbled the
ball. They have now decided to spend $4.1 billion more than what they
promised just 9 months ago to spend. This is getting back part of it.
It is two pennies. It is two pennies for the future of our children.
It is not to say that the appropriation committees do not do a good
job, but the fact is, the very people that are going to receive this
money can do a better job. They be more efficient. They can accomplish
more with less if, in fact, we will just tell them to do it.
I would ask our Members to support this amendment, not for us but for
the commitment that we have made to the future, for our children and
for our grandchildren.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I want to begin by expressing appreciation to the gentleman from
Minnesota, the author of the amendment, for his compliments to the
chairman and to the committee in trying to go through this and be
discerning about how we treat all of the respective accounts.
I want to assure the body that the chairman, the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, has certainly provided leadership in doing
that. As a matter of fact, he, myself, the staff, every member of the
committee have spent hours going over this bill in a very discerning
sort of way, choosing between accounts, making judgments, making value
judgments about programs and trying to come up within our allocation
with the very best funding scheme that we could. It has certainly been
consciously done.
The problem I have with the gentleman's amendment is that it is not
particularly careful. It is not discerning. In one sense only, it is
not conscious; that is, we do not consider every account carefully.
That is not the way to treat an appropriations bill, particularly at a
time of shrinking resources when the pie is smaller. We need to
approach these very carefully.
With regard to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, who asked
the question, can we not take a certain percentage out of any bill? Can
we not take a certain percentage out of our own accounts or our
business? I would say no to him, because I question the underlying
premise. The underlying premise to that question is these accounts are
adequately funded to begin with, and we can squeeze more out of them.
I want to assure him these accounts are not adequately funded. We
could use more money for crime fighting in this Nation, and this
committee has tried to give every penny to crime fighting we can at the
expense of the other accounts in the bill. Consequently, the other
accounts in the bill are all shortchanged. No, we do not have
additional money in this bill, because the accounts are not now
adequately funded.
So, for all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I join my chairman in
opposing the amendment and would ask that the body oppose this
nondiscriminating amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that to properly control
crime we first have to control spending. To properly control our
borders, I think we first have to control spending. If we do not, a
child born into America today will one day pay an 82 percent tax rate
just to keep our government solvent.
What I want to focus on, instead of the facts and figures that I
think we all know, though, is the human side of this cost. We are
talking about $466 million. We are talking about a 1.9 percent cut that
we argue we cannot make in Washington.
I would argue that we can and we must because, if we take for
instance the small town that I grew up in, Dale, SC, that had just a
few hundred folks living in it, it would take them working and then
paying taxes for the next 800 years simply to make up this 1.9 percent.
Or if we went back into my district near Charleston, it would take
155,000 people paying taxes for 1 year to equal the 1.9 percent for the
$466 million that we are talking about.
Those may not be real numbers in Washington, but they are very real
numbers over 1 year or 800 years of sweat and toil back home in South
Carolina. For that reason I would urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the times remaining and who has
the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] has
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The chairman of the committee has the right to close and protect the
committee position.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise in support of an
amendment to eliminate 1.9 percent of the spending in an appropriations
bill; 1.9 percent.
Around here, that is decimal dust. But it is not back home.
It is not decimal dust to the taxpayers back in Indiana who are sick
[[Page H8283]]
and tired of having their government in Washington, DC, spend more than
it takes in revenue.
We can talk about reducing the deficit--and we have--we have even
taken some good steps in that direction.
But guess what?
The people of southwest Indiana are tired of talk. They want more
action.
They want more action for the sake of our children, who are the ones
who are really stuck with paying off America's debt. 1.9 percent.
I would imagine that the Americans watching this debate in their
homes wonder why we are speaking so passionately about this amendment.
I would imagine that Americans watching this debate are thinking,
surely this will pass.
Many are probably thinking that instead of 1.9 percent it ought to be
19 percent.
I should say to those folks watching this debate that the sad reality
is that we have offered this amendment to most of the appropriation
bills and it has failed every time; 1.9 percent.
It is a sad day for our children when we cannot even support a simple
1.9 percent across-the-board reduction.
I urge a yes vote on this amendment for ourselves and for our
children.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think I cannot say anything that would add or detract
from what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] just said.
This debate is simply about 1.9 percent of discretionary spending on
this bill. This bill increases spending over last year over $1 billion.
We are talking about reducing that increase by $466 million.
This debate again is not about 1.9 percent, it is about keeping the
faith and keeping our word to our children. This is really about
whether or not we have the courage to do the difficult things.
As my colleague said earlier, this is about whether different
programs are adequately funded, and certainly that is true. But there
is no limit to how much money we can spend on all of these very
valuable programs. We can go through this debate on each and every
bill, and we can make an argument for spending in every single
category.
I am not saying the money is being wasted, but what I am saying is if
we continue to pile debt upon debt on our children, sooner or later
they are going to reach a point at which they cannot exist. They cannot
make their house payments. We are denying them the quality of life, the
standard of living that we have enjoyed.
If we forget everything I say, remember this: Every single dollar of
personal income taxes collected west of the Mississippi River now goes
to pay the interest on the national debt. And the tragedy is every year
that line is moving further west.
When are we going to draw the line? When are we going to say enough
is enough? Because realistically, ladies and gentleman, if we cannot
cut $4.1 billion in extra spending this year, then how in the world can
we face our children and say but we will cut $47 billion in just 3
years.
I admire what the appropriations committees have done. I admire what
the chairman has done. I admire what this subcommittee has done. But
the truth of the matter is we are not doing what we said we were going
to do. We are allowing spending to go up. I am offering the body a
chance to recover that fumble.
I would hope that we could finally, once said for all, get a majority
vote on this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts at
cutting spending and saving money, but on this particular bill we are
talking about cutting, with his amendment, things like the fight on
crime. We will be cutting the Drug Enforcement Administration. We will
be cutting the FBI. We will be cutting the Marshals Service. We will be
cutting courts. We will be cutting the fight against violence by
children and violence against women. All of the things that I think in
a bipartisan way in this body, we are united to try to fight, this
amendment would cut.
It may be appropriate in other portions of the Government, it is not
appropriate in cutting the crime-fighting agencies of the Government.
It would also cut the Border Patrol. It would do damage to the
Nation's effort to control our borders, to fight crime by teenagers, to
fight violence against women. It would cut the funding to each of our
States for moneys to help them build prisons to house State prisoners.
I would urge the Members to reject the amendment on this bill. As the
gentleman has said, this subcommittee has done a great job, in my
opinion, on allocating scarce resources. We are not profligate spenders
on this subcommittee. No one is going to say, I do not believe, that
the law enforcement agencies of the Nation's Government are overfunded.
Certainly I hope the Members will reject this amendment and keep
intact the Nation's fight against crime, against drugs, controlling our
border and fighting violence against women and by children. Reject the
amendment. Vote ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] will be postponed.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Hutchinson
Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. Hutchinson: Page 116, after line
2, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds in this Act appropriated for a
municipal or county jail, State or Federal prison, or other
similar facility for the confinement of individuals in
connection with crime or criminal proceedings, not more than
90 percent of the funds otherwise authorized to be made
available to any such municipal or county jail, State or
Federal prison, or other similar facility, may be made
available when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
authorities of such jail, prison, or other facility have not
reported to the Attorney General each death of any individual
who dies in custody in that jail, prison, or facility, and
the circumstances that surround that death.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] will be recognized
for 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
{time} 1345
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to commend and thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]
for his leadership on this issue and his bipartisan efforts on this
amendment.
This reporting of deaths in custody requirement passed the House last
year during the Contract With America. It passed with bipartisan
support by a voice vote. At that time both the chairman and the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Crime spoke in strong support of the
reporting of deaths.
This amendment will ensure a measure of accountability on the part of
law enforcement officials by requiring them to report deaths that occur
while in custody. It requires municipal or county jails, State or
Federal prisons who receive funds under this bill to report to the
Attorney General the deaths of those who die in their facilities.
Today no one counts how many people die in jail cells and lockups
across the country. This amendment will send a cautionary message about
accountability and I believe it will save lives.
It is estimated that each year in this country over 1,000 men and
women die while in prison, jail or police custody. An exhaustive
investigative reporting piece in the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey
revealed that while most of these deaths are listed as suicides, many
are, quote, tainted with racial overtones, good-ole-boy conspiracies
and coverups or investigative competence.
[[Page H8284]]
By requiring a report to a central source, the Attorney General, we
will have an accurate account of how numerous these deaths are and what
circumstances surround them. In supporting this amendment, we are
supporting accountability of reporting of those 1,000 deaths which
occur each year in jails and lockups across this country. I urge an
``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], and commend
him for it. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. HUTCHINSON, has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my good friend from
Arkansas in supporting this amendment.
This amendment simply requires that deaths which occur in State and
local jails and prisons be reported to the U.S. Attorney General. A
similar measure was adopted by the House on a voice vote without
opposition during the consideration of the 1995 crime bill.
Dating back to my experience as a State legislator, Mr. Chairman, I
have been concerned that there is no system of counting the deaths that
occur in the custody of law enforcement officials. As detailed in the
exhaustive year long investigative report last year by the Asbury Press
in New Jersey, many of those deaths occur under suspicious
circumstances. They estimated that about 1,000 of such deaths occur
each year. These reports will allow us to get a handle on the nature
and extent of how serious a problem it may be. We just do not know.
Some suggested this may be an unreasonable burden. But if any
jurisdiction in America has so many deaths in custody that reporting
all of them would be a burden, then this amendment is even more
necessary.
I would hope that we would adopt the amendment, and I thank the
gentleman from Arkansas for introducing it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by ms. norton
Ms. NORTON. 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 Ms. Norton: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . The amount provided in this Act for ``Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' is
increased, and each other amount provided in this Act that is
not required to be provided by a provision of law is reduced,
by $13,000,000 and 0.06 percent, respectively.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Tuesday,
July 23, 1996, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
[Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am back again with an amendment that has a very different offset
which I hope this body will now pass. I am back with a bipartisan
amendment for a small increase in EEOC funding. My bipartisan sponsor
is the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts. Mr. Watts had intended
to sponsor this bill with me but at the time the offset on the bill
kept him from doing so.
I used that offset on the bill because it was my understanding that
there was no way in which the prisons that are now under construction
could be finished in time. The good chairman of the committee indicated
that he had already taken that into account and that, therefore,
somehow not even this very small amount of money, $13 million, could be
extracted from the delay in prison construction.
I am back with another idea, a .06 reduction across the board in this
appropriation. It is so small but that it is hard to envision what
amount of money that would be, but what it would do would be very great
and very large.
Mr. Chairman, we are divided in this House on what the remedy is for
discrimination. We are not divided on the proposition that there must
be remedy for discrimination.
This bill is not about whether there will be a remedy, for that is
the one thing that I think we could get a 100-percent vote. This is not
a vote about affirmative action. This is not a vote about set-asides.
This is not a vote about goals and timetables. This is a vote about
whether a person should be able to walk into an office, file a
complaint, and get a timely remedy.
This is a civil rights vote that comes very cheap this year in a
Congress that has paid almost no attention to civil rights. It comes
cheaper than it should. The President wanted $35 million. The Watts-
Norton amendment asks only for $13 million.
Why are we making such a large point about such a small increase?
Because we hope to make a large difference in whether or not offices
will be opened or closed. In the 100,000-case backlog, that is the
backlog I found when I came to the EEOC. We got rid of it. Why is it
there again? Because there has not been the money. Even the alternative
dispute resolution system, which I think is the way to handle
discrimination cases, individual cases should be settled and that
should be the end of it, that is the system that allowed me to get rid
of the backlog, even that system will be delayed for want of this small
amount of money.
I ask my colleagues to understand where the pressures are coming
from. The half of the population that is female has discovered the
EEOC. It is the sex discrimination cases that are driving the agency.
Yes, the agency has a black face, and we are proud of that because
black people went into the streets to get an antidiscrimination agency.
It has a black face but it has a female engine today. The cases are
about sex discrimination. That is the fastest growing group of cases.
We looked into this matter when the Mitsubishi case hit the front
pages, and we found that there were obscene photos in the plant and
physical assaults in the plant, and that Mitsubishi had called meetings
of its employees where they said when such complaints are filed, people
might stop buying cars and, therefore, they could lose their jobs,
retaliation under the law if ever I have heard of it.
Then we asked EEOC, are you prosecuting this case, are you trying to
settle this case? Do you have the money to do so? And we got the
astonishing answer that in real terms the budget of this agency has not
been increased since, as Chairman Casellas says, since Delegate Norton
was chairman. My friends, that was more than 15 years ago.
Then there were 3,390 people at the EEOC. Now there are 2,813 people,
and I did not have any Americans With Disabilities Act. I did not have
a 1991 Civil Rights Act that now has been entirely rewritten and
therefore has to be reworked at the administrative level. I, in fact,
wrote the sexual harassment guidelines, but I did not have thousands of
sexual harassment cases because the consciousness was not then what it
is now.
The chairman deserves credit for not cutting the EEOC, and he is
right that he has cut some other agencies. But by leaving EEOC at level
funding for 1995, 1996, and 1997, a very large cut has in fact occurred
because expenses have gone up at an extraordinary rate. The case level
has gone up at an extraordinary rate and there is simply not the money
to do it. They already have a furlough day. They will have much more.
They must take every case that comes before them under the law. But
the law does not say that they must indeed provide a remedy or provide
fair dealing for every case that comes before them, because they can
only do what they have the capacity to do, and they do not have the
capacity to do the work they are mandated to do under the law today.
These cases will bury the agency. We have done almost nothing about
civil rights. This is the way to stand up in America and say, look,
there is too
[[Page H8285]]
much racial division, there is too much division of every kind in this
country. But there is no division on the proposition that this is a
country that stands for the right to file a complaint, leave it to the
objective process and live with the resolution. We must make that
objective process functional. I ask Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who seeks to control time in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the EEOC is handling the case
load, the backlog, in a very efficient way. They are beginning to
reduce that backlog, not as much as we would all like to see, but
nevertheless the backlog is being reduced.
We kept the EEOC at level funding this year while we were cutting
most of the other agencies over which we have jurisdiction except the
law enforcement agencies. But we held them harmless from cuts so that
they could continue to make progress in working off that backlog, and
they have made progress this year. We commend them for that.
My problem with the gentlewoman's amendment is that it takes money
from, as I have said before, the law enforcement functions that we are
funding in this bill primarily. There would be moneys taken by this
amendment from the war on drugs. We would see a reduction in the
funding of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
We would see reductions in the funding for the Nation's attempts to
control its border. We could see a cut in the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the numbers of Border Patrol agents that we
can put on the border. We would see a reduction in the FBI funding
which is waging the war on crime and of course terrorism.
We would see a reduction in the level of State and local law
enforcement funding for those who are fighting crime, both drugs, youth
and all other crime, in our communities and neighborhoods.
We would be cutting moneys from the Federal judiciary. We all know
that they are swamped with cases and their funding levels are nowhere
near where they need to be, even with the small increase in this bill.
So those are some of the places where the money for this amendment
would have to come from. We are very reluctant to agree to that, even
though I think most of us realize the need for more money in the EEOC
whenever we can find it.
We did provide the level funding. We did not cut them from last year.
So I would hope that the Members would stay with us on this and reject
this amendment, even as they rejected the one yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
{time} 1400
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Delegate from
the District of Columbia, her effort on this amendment, and I want to
say to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], I feel like I owe him
an apology because we tried to get an amendment yesterday to add more
money to EEOC; however, we were not in agreement on how the additional
funding or where the money should come from.
I was not in support of taking it out of the Federal prison system,
but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was born out of the
civil rights movement of 1964 and opened its doors in 1965. At that
time, the caseload was sparse and attorneys would handle maybe 10, 15
cases each, and now the caseload has grown, and there is a need to
assist this Commission even further.
But like I said, however, I thought that penalizing the Federal
prison system, which is what the amendment that was proposed yesterday
did, this amendment would take a small amount out of discretionary
spending, and I believe that is a small price to pay for equal justice.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I do
appreciate the Chairman allowing us at this late hour to bring forth
this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute amendment being
prepared. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a
substitute amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House of yesterday, July 23,
only the author of the amendment can ask unanimous consent to modify
her own amendment. No other Member can offer an amendment; it would not
be in order.
She would have to ask, in this case, unanimous consent to modify her
amendment.
Ms. NORTON. I ask unanimous consent to offer a----
The CHAIRMAN. Actually, the Chair was incorrect. It is to modify the
amendment, not to substitute.
Mr. ROGERS. The gentlewoman, I think under the rules of the House,
would be allowed to modify the amendment that she has pending in the
nature of a substitute; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. She cannot offer a separate substitute; she can modify
her own amendment only by unanimous consent. In order for that to
occur, the Clerk would need to read a copy of the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. So is the gentlewoman seeking to modify her pending
amendment with the language that she is sending to the desk?
Ms. NORTON. I am.
Would my colleagues like me to read this language, or shall I send it
to the desk to be read?
The CHAIRMAN. A copy must be submitted to the Clerk so that the Clerk
can report the modification.
Perhaps the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] could yield some
time while we get this all worked out.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for the purpose of yielding
time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What the gentlewoman and I have discussed, Mr. Chairman, along with
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], is finding a place to find
some more money for the EEOC, although not as much as the gentlewoman
would originally seek in her amendment.
What the modified amendment will do would be to take $8 million from
another account within the bill so as to increase the funding level for
the EEOC by some $7 million.
I have discussed not only with the gentlewoman and with the
gentleman, who is also very interested in this, but also the ranking
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Mollohan], and we are all in agreement.
So I would hope that we could support the gentlewoman's modified
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
renew her request for unanimous consent to modify her amendment?
modification to amendment offered by ms. norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment in the terms that we have just heard from the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Ms. Norton. At the end
of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the
short title) the following new section:
Sec. . The amount provided in this Act for ``Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' is
increased by $1,000,000. The amount provided for Small
Business Administration, Disaster Loan Program Account for
administrative expenses is reduced by $8,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is now modified.
Does any Member seek to yield time?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just really want this time to express
[[Page H8286]]
appreciation to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for being
responsive to this request. There have been a number of efforts on the
floor to increase this account, and they have been really in good
faith, they have worked extremely hard, and I think this is a fine
result, and I know everybody is appreciative to the gentleman from
Kentucky for his understanding with regard to this matter.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Kentucky yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Let me join in the chorus of thanking the gentleman.
He was a gentleman last night, and he has been a wonderful gentleman
today. I think this is a very, very essential add-on, and I thank the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for understanding the tremendous
additional workload that these people have had.
So I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not only grateful but proud to stand
with the gentleman and with the ranking member as well, and especially
in this bipartisan exchange, to stand with my good friend from
Oklahoma, Mr. Watts, who sought me out and indicated that if indeed the
offset had been different, he had very much wanted to support this
matter with me.
I do believe that this is precisely the kind of bipartisanship on
precisely the kind of issue we need more of in this country, and I am
very proud and pleased to be associated with everybody in the Chamber.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I too want to add my
commendations. I appreciate, at this late hour the gentleman was not
even aware of this amendment, and as Delegate Norton mentioned, I asked
her to offer this amendment, and we talked about it and brought it
forth, and I appreciate the gentleman's assistance to us in this
effort, especially at such a late hour.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in concluding, let me thank the Members who
have spoken for their nice compliments, but the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Watts] makes a very strong case. He puts a strong arm on a person,
as well as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton],
and of course our colleague on the subcommittee and ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
We are all of one mind on this, and we had of course the amendments
yesterday which sought also to increase, but we were able to find a
modest increase instead of the one sought, and we were able to find a
place where I think we can take money from another account without
harming that other account or, certainly, the war on crime, drugs, or
control of our borders.
So I congratulate the parties for hard work and making a very strong
case, and with that, I am prepared to yield back, hoping we can get to
a final conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KLUG. I will not take that long, Mr. Chairman.
Speaking to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the
committee, last year I offered an amendment to the 1996 Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act, which prohibited NOAA
from using funds provided to undertake a fleet modernization program.
NOAA fleet modernization would cost more than $1 billion according to
the General Accounting Office. Private firms are more than capable of
supplying NOAA with the data they need for charting and mapping. The
university national oceanographic laboratory system has a fleet that is
currently capable of doing NOAA's research. Bearing this in mind, I
would like to ask the gentleman if my language prohibiting NOAA from
implementing a fleet modernization program is indeed included in H.R.
3814.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman's language is, in fact, included in the
bill under title VI.
amendment offered by mr. collins of Georgia
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. Collins of Georgia: Page 116,
after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 615. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended to administer Federal Prison
Industries except when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that Federal Prison Industries--
(1) considers 20 percent of the Federal market for a new
product produced by Federal Prison Industries after the date
of the enactment of this Act as being a reasonable share of
total purchases of such product by Federal departments and
agencies; and
(2) uses, when describing in any report or study a specific
product produced by Federal Prison Industries--
(A) the 7-digit classification for the product in the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code published by
the Office of Management and Budget (or if there is no 7-
digit code classification for a product, the 5-digit code
classification); and
(B) the 13-digit National Stock Number assigned to such
product under the Federal Stock Classification System
(including group, part number, and section), as determined by
the General Services Administration.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 23,
1996, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and a Member opposed
will each control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 of those 7\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Federal prison
industries. What is the Federal prison industries? The FPI, also known
as UNICOR, is a Government-owned corporation with a board of directors
created to provide employment and rehabilitation for convicts. The
program, which had over $450 million in sales in 1995, projected by GAO
to have sales of $1.2 billion by the year 2000, provides manufacturing
jobs for convicts who in return are paid a wage for their work.
In addition, the law guarantees this prison manufacturing corporation
a captured consumer base because it requires all Government agencies to
give first priority to FPI over all private sector manufacturers.
What does the Collins-Hoekstra amendment do? This amendment simply
states that in order for the FPI to use the $3 million for
administrative expenses authorized, and I repeat authorized, in this
appropriations bill, not appropriated since the corporation is self-
sustaining, the agency must comply with the original intent of
Congress. The original statute clearly required assurance that FPI not
dominate more than a reasonable share of the market for a specific
product.
The FPI has failed to restrict a dominance to a reasonable share of
markets. As a result the FPI is eliminating small business jobs all
over the country for hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
Has there been a hearing on this problem? Yes. The Committee on Small
Business recently held a hearing on this very issue. The chief
operating officer of the FPI testified that the agency has indeed
violated the reasonable share and specific product provisions of the
current law. The FPI is dominating many markets for manufactured goods
by lumping together product identification numbers and establishing a
false impact study which underreports FIP's true share of market and
fails to reflect the resulting damage inflicted upon small business.
[[Page H8287]]
This amendment will ensure that FPI does not dominate more than a
reasonable share of the market for new products, new products. This
amendment will clarify that the reasonable share is equal to 20 percent
of the market share of a specific product as distinguished by an
assigned identification number.
This amendment grandfathers current contracts held by FPI. Therefore,
not one contract, not one Federal job, not one convict job will be lost
due to this amendment. By requiring FPI to comply with the original
intent of Congress, we will save small business jobs for law-abiding,
hard-working family breadwinners, at least for the next year, covered
by this appropriations bill.
In addition, we will continue to provide work and rehabilitation for
convicts. This will provide the authorizing committee the opportunity
to study the problem and will be a fair and generous solution for all.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment due
primarily to the strong opposition of the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Crime, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] whose authorization
committee has oversight of the Federal prison industries program.
Here is another instance, Mr. Chairman, where I have a chairman of
the appropriate authorizing subcommittee saying to me, ``Do not put
authorization language in your appropriations bill.'' I do not know the
merits particularly of the gentleman's proposal, but I am objecting on
procedural grounds, primarily because the authorization committee wants
this considered in this subcommittee, not in an appropriations bill.
Mr. McCollum has asked that I raise his concerns with regard to this
amendment because he is detained at this moment in an important hearing
in his subcommittee and simply cannot get away.
{time} 1415
I am speaker more or less in place of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, as I understand it, seeks to
ensure that the Federal Prison Industries consider 20 percent of the
Federal market for new products that they produce as the reasonable
share and, thus, the limit of the market they shall obtain. As the
gentleman knows, the Federal Government is the only consumer of
products that the Federal Prison Industries produces.
According to the authorization committee, the amendment would have
the following impact:
One, it would effectively prevent Federal Prison Industries from even
bidding for a significant number of Government contracts by severely
narrowing the definition of ``new product'';
Two, it would undermine the statutory process passed by Congress to
decide what products the Federal Prison Industries sells to the Federal
Government and in what amounts;
And three, it would drastically limit any growth of Federal Prison
Industries. It would severely limit Federal Prison Industries from
giving work skills and real job experience to the overwhelming majority
of inmates incarcerated in the future.
In addition, the Bureau of Prisons is opposed to this legislation
being added to the appropriations bill. They believe the changes to
Federal Prison Industries requirements should be completely vented and
hearings held and dealt with in the full authorization context.
I also understand the authorization committee plans to begin
extensive hearings on the future of Federal Prison Industries after the
August break. I am told that the chairman of that committee, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], has agreed to consider this
proposal as part of a planned overhaul of the entire Federal prison
industry system.
While I understand that the gentleman may not agree with the impact
of his legislation that the authorization committee is asserting, I
believe that this disagreement and lack of true understanding of the
impact is cause to object to this language on an appropriations bill.
This is another complicated issue, Mr. Chairman, that we could debate
the impact of, but once again, this is not the process that we do that.
There is a reason why there is a rule of the House saying legislation
shall not be placed on an appropriations bill, authorizing legislation,
because we need to have hearings and study and think and have all input
from all angles in a sustained period of time, not in a 10-minute burst
of time on an appropriations bill where we do not simply understand the
impact of what we may be doing. It deserves the attention of the
authorization committee, and the chairman of that committee has asked
that the process be respected, that we not legislate on this bill will
a matter subject to his jurisdiction.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, although I highly respect the
gentleman and his amendment, I have to urge a ``no'' vote on his
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me, and for working so hard at making this amendment possible.
Mr. Chairman, let us clarify again what we are doing here. We are
talking about limiting Federal Prison Industries [FPI], and going after
new products in new markets. This does not affect the markets or
products they are currently producing. This amendment is very limited
in its scope, and based on the performance of FPI it should be much
broader. It is only a small step at reining in FPI's aggressive and
arrogant zeal for new products and new business in new markets to
employ increased levels of Federal inmates, and every time they do this
they are doing it at the expense of small businesses and medium-size
businesses and American workers around this country.
They have abused their privileges. They have abused their position in
this marketplace where they have super preference. What super
preference means is that the Federal Government can only buy from FPI.
FPI has to provide a waiver to the Federal Government before they buy
from the private sector or before the Federal Government decides to buy
from a blind or handicapped rehabilitative agency. They have abused
this privilege.
This is a shot across their bow that says no more, no more in new
products. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] goes through the
process of having the extensive hearings, then we can go back and take
a look at the abuses they put in place over the last number of years.
Specifically, in my district, they have decided that a reasonable
number is that they should grow office furniture sales by $60 million.
That shows that they will unemploy about 350 workers, potentially, in
my district.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to rein them in. This is a reasonable
amendment until we can have more and complete hearings.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I want to compliment him and the ranking member for the
excellent job they are doing on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment and I want to tell the
Members why. This amendment would impose heavier restrictions on the
Federal Prison Industries, it would eliminate up to 7,000 inmate jobs.
I have looked at this program and I have looked at the implications of
this amendment. It would actually threaten also thousands of private
sector jobs.
There are basically three reasons, in analyzing this amendment, why I
would be opposed to it. One, it allows the private sector suppliers who
rely on its businesses to create thousands of jobs at the present time.
The private sector jobs in this amendment would be destroyed. It is the
only program that requires prisoners to give something back to society
they have harmed. It is the only program that truly allows prisoners to
develop the work ethic and skills necessary for them to become
productive members.
We have done a lot here in this Congress to try to attack this issue
of crime which is so prevalent in society today. What we have to do is
when the prisoners come back, these inmates
[[Page H8288]]
come back to society, they have to be able to do useful work. That is
the purpose of this program. Prisoners who graduate from the program
have a lower recidivism rate than those who do not. It only stands to
reason.
Also, it allows prisoners to earn some income which can be used to
pay court-ordered fines, victim restitution, and child support. All of
this is accomplished without the use of a single taxpayer dollar.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress, more than any other recent Congress, has
taken tough stands against criminals. Without FPI, all talk of putting
criminals to work would become meaningless. There would be no outlet
for the products of their labor. Words, I think, should be backed up by
deeds. We have had a lot of words here in the Congress, that we are
going to fight crime and pass various legislation.
That is why I am opposed to this bill, because I think it is going to
harm not only society but it is going to impede the rehabilitation of
our prisoners, which I think is so important, especially in today's
society.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman who just spoke to the original
amendment that was offered, because this amendment does not affect any
existing jobs that are now held or that are used to produce products by
FPI, he was referring to the previous amendment, not this one. I know
he misspoke only because of not having knowledge of the current
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Hilleary].
(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
important amendment. The conduct of the Federal Prison Industries, or
FPI, is of grave concern to many small apparel manufacturers in my
district back in Tennessee.
FPI has continued to expand production with very little regard for
small businesses and the people they employ. Because of its super
preferences, FPI is able to take contracts away from private industry
which otherwise would be able to bid on them. This obviously means a
loss of jobs to law-abiding citizens and threatens the very existence
of many small businesses.
Throughout history, contractors from the private sector have
responded to the Government's need for apparel and other products. In
times of war or other natural emergencies, these contractors have
provided the military and other Federal agencies products they needed
to protect our national interests. Moreover, FPI uses their Government
preference to take work away from many industries which are besieged by
low-cost industries, imports, and stiff competition, even in their own
domestic market.
I fully understand and agree with the idea of work for prisoners, but
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit this is not the way to do it. Mr.
Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to
do so also.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just sum this up by saying that there is not a
Member of this Congress that I know of who is not strongly in favor of
working prisoners, inmates. We feel like they should work. I probably
am one of the strongest that there was in the State legislature of
Georgia supporting work on behalf of those who have committed wrong.
But also I am very interested and concerned about private sector
small business jobs. The FPI has encroached considerably on a number of
small businesses. They have violated what the intent of Congress was by
lumping specific product numbers together so they could present a false
impact statement as to how their new product or the product on the
market they were entering was going to affect a particular small
business. This is wrong.
We should not be doing anything in this Congress that would harm the
job or harm the business of small business and the private sector who
are hiring employees, law-abiding citizens, taxpayers, breadwinners,
people who go to work every day to support their families, even though
we all support strong and hard ethic and work rules for prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment to support small business, support
private sector jobs, and support this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just quickly say I rise in
opposition to the amendment, for a lot of the good reasons that the
chairman of the subcommittee cited.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize my opposition to this
amendment. The reason I am opposed to this is not because I want to
negatively affect the business community of America or the jobs of
anybody, but because prison industries are crucial for this Nation.
This amendment would limit any growth of Federal Prison Industries.
In effect, it would be preventing the Federal Prison Industries, our
Federal prison system, from giving work skills and real job experience
to prisoners. It is as simple as that. The limits are too severe. It is
not that we do not want to constrain to some degree, but this
particular amendment unfortunately limits it far too severely.
If we are going to have the ability to find a way to get the proper
restraints on this system I would be happy to support it, but today
this one is far too restrictive, and I urge a ``no'' vote in
unequivocal terms to this amendment. Otherwise, we simply will not be
able to do the job, with the increasing growth of numbers of Federal
prisoners, and we have huge numbers coming into our system. We will not
be able to put them into work in meaningful jobs if this amendment is
adopted.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Collins amendment. While I have some concerns about the language of the
amendment, I believe the FPI problem is one that must be addressed by
Congress.
My congressional district contains private sector industries in all
four of the product categories which form the bulk of FPI's production:
furniture, apparel, textiles, and electronics. FPI's production in the
first two of these categories has increased dramatically over the
years, in many cases violating FPI's own guidelines in securing market
share far above what Congress intended. Sales of dorm and quarters
furniture, for example, increased by 138 percent between 1991 and 1993,
without triggering Board review as mandated by law. This is
accomplished, at least in part, by arbitrary changes in market share
definitions by FPI.
I have tried for 5 years to work with FPI to come to some
accommodation on these issues, and they have consistently delayed and
evaded my efforts. I do not wish to cripple FPI, because I believe the
task they face of training and employing prisoners is an important one.
But I strongly believe this can and must be accomplished without taking
thousands of jobs away from law-abiding, hard-working Americans.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins]
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]; an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Ganske]; amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman for
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]; and the amendment
[[Page H8289]]
offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1430
amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 16,
noes 408, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--16
Beilenson
Blumenauer
Conyers
DeFazio
Dellums
Fawell
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Hinchey
Royce
Sanford
Shays
Visclosky
Waters
Yates
NOES--408
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Gibbons
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Stark
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1449
Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Messrs. GOSS, BONILLA, JEFFERSON, NEAL of
Massachusetts, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and OLVER changed their vote
from ``ayes'' to ``no.''
Mr. FOGLIETTA and Mr. ROYCE 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. ganske
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by 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.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 295,
noes 128, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No 349]
AYES--295
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Menendez
Metcalf
[[Page H8290]]
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Montgomery
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--128
Baker (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Conyers
Coyne
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gilman
Gutierrez
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Houghton
Hoyer
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Knollenberg
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Walker
Watt (NC)
White
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--10
Archer
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Frisa
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1458
Mr. PALLONE and Mr. FIELDS of Texas changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. VOLKMER, FORBES, HASTINGS of Florida, WYNN, HEINEMAN, EWING,
and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. gutknecht
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by 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.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 125,
noes 300, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--125
Allard
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Brownback
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kleczka
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Laughlin
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Parker
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Walker
Weldon (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--300
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--8
Archer
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1505
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. collins of georgia
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] on
[[Page H8291]]
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by 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.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 244, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--182
Allard
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boehner
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Oxley
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Porter
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roberts
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Walker
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunn
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cremeans
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--7
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1514
Mr. DAVIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3814, the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill for fiscal year
1997. The bill is tough on crime and the funding it provides will help
us in the effort to gain control of our borders.
Since I first took office, my constituents have stressed to me time
and again what a high priority they place on public safety and crime
prevention. I am pleased to see that this bill provides $1.4 billion--
equal to last year's spending--on the successful Community Policing
block grants. This means that we will continue to put thousands of new
local law enforcement officers on the beat in our cities.
I would also like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for
fully funding National Institute of Justice programs like the regional
Law & Technology Centers. These centers, which identify defense
technologies suitable for use by law enforcement, have already produced
notable results. The Western Regional center, located in El Segundo,
CA, is currently helping develop image enhancement technology which has
already been used to solve the murder of a police officer in my
district.
Additionally, I am pleased that the bill funds key technology
programs at the Department of Commerce including the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) and the Advanced Technology Program. Both
of these initiatives are examples of how government and industry can
form partnerships to stimulate our Nation's research and development
base. Nowhere is this partnership more evident than at the California
Manufacturing and Technology Center in Southern California's South
Bay--where last year, 51 small manufacturers hired 442 additional
employees after implementing improvements recommended by the CMTC.
Furthermore, the bill provides an increase of $457 million for
agencies enforcing our immigration laws, paying for 1,000 new border
patrol agents and 2700 additional detention beds. It also provides $500
million in sorely needed reimbursement to the States for the cost of
incarcerating criminal aliens.
As originally reported, the bill needed some changes; most notably,
restoration of funding to the Legal Services Corporation. As a young
lawyer in the late 1960's and early 1970's, I witnessed the birth of
the Legal Services Corporation and participated in its struggle for
adequate funding. The LSC has been a lifeline for the thousands over
the years, helping poor Americans defend themselves against wrongful
evictions, wrongful denial of Social Security benefits, and wrongful
denial of parental rights. It has also helped victims of domestic
violence--in fact, one out of every three cases handled by LSC concerns
family law matters including abusive spouses, and neglected and abused
juveniles. LSC has already been cut by over \1/3\. The additional
massive cuts in the bill as reported were unnecessary and hurtful. I am
pleased to note that the Mollohan amendment that the House has just
passed restored $109 million in funding to the LSC.
Mr. Chairman, on the whole this is a good bill. It is tough on crime
and illegal immigration, and provides much needed resources to our law
enforcement authorities. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 3814. I believe this legislation represents a solid approach to
our Nation's commitment in fighting drug abuse and protecting our
borders.
The bill provides more than $7.1 billion in funding for the Drug
Enforcement Administration in order to renew a counternarcotics attack,
and an additional $75 million for the DEA to target source countries
and restore the successful international drug efforts to 1992 levels.
H.R. 3814 also places a priority on protecting our borders. As you
know, it adds 1,100 new border control agents and 2,700 more detention
cells to ensure the deportation of illegal aliens residing in the
United States.
[[Page H8292]]
I am concerned, however, about the significant increase in Federal
money that goes toward fighting crime. I simply believe that it is bad
policy in light of the Federal Government's limited role in fighting
crime and our very serious debt crisis.
Congress plays an important and appropriate role in clarifying rights
under the Constitution and protecting our borders. These issues were
addressed in legislation passed in the Contract With America, for
example: Victim Restitution, Effective Death Penalty Act, Criminal
Alien Deportation Acts. Community policing on the other hand, has
always been viewed as a local responsibility.
I cannot justify committing billions of dollars in Federal funds for
a responsibility that is truly a responsibility of State and local
governments. I fear that efforts by Congress to assert control in areas
that, under the Constitution, are clearly left to State and local
agencies, will result in politicizing the crime issue, too much Federal
control, and an unjustified increase in our budget deficit.
It makes more sense to let localities raise money to meet local
needs; sending taxpayer dollars to Washington results in less money
coming back because of administration costs.
Because of the overall funding levels in the bill, I supported the
Gutknecht amendment to reduce spending by 1.9 percent across-the-board,
which would further help our deficit reduction efforts.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong
support for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms. It is my
understanding that the managers amendment would allow funding for the
program, with an understanding that a specific source of funds would be
identified during conference. The TAA for Firms Programs provides
management assistance to manufacturers nationwide who have been
severely impacted by foreign imports.
The TAA Program for Firms is extremely cost effective, as increased
Federal and State taxes paid by manufacturers that have been through
the program more than pay for the cost of the program. According to the
most recent Trade Adjustment Assistance Report, every dollar invested
into the TAA for Firms Program returns almost $7.50 to States and the
Federal Government in tax revenue. This number does not include savings
to the Government from unemployment and welfare benefits which we are
not providing the employees of the companies that participate in the
program because we keep these workers employed.
During the years TAA for Firms has been available, Federal
appropriations have totaled $77.3 million. Almost 79,000 jobs have been
impacted during this period, for a Federal investment of $980 per job--
making this an extremely cost-effective expenditure of Federal dollars.
During the period 1989-95, 597 companies nationwide participated in
the TAA Program. Two years before becoming eligible for the program,
these companies employed almost 82,000 workers. By the time of their
eligibility, employment levels in these companies had dropped by 14
percent. But within 2 years of entering the program, employment was up
over 12 percent, restoring three-fourths of the employees lost through
foreign competition prior to entering the program.
Nationally, sales levels for these companies dropped from $6.8
billion to $6.1 billion in the 2 years prior to their entering the
program. Within 2 years, sales had increased to $8 billion, a 30
percent increase from their levels at certification.
Most importantly, productivity, as measured by sales per employee,
has increased significantly. Two years prior to certification, sales
per employee averaged less than $83,000. At certification, sales per
employee were averaging slightly over $87,000. However, after
completion of all or the bulk of the approved assistance, sales per
employee have increased to over $101,000. This is an increase of almost
16 percent since certification.
TAA for Firms is the only Federal program that gives direct aid to
companies for specific and individualized company needs. Many of these
needs are not technology needs, but involve problems in marketing,
financing, production, product development, distribution, and systems
integration. No other Federal Government program provides assistance in
these areas.
When NAFTA was approved, we made a commitment to the employees and
companies that would be adversely impacted by the liberalization of
trade with Canada and Mexico that we would provide transitional
assistance to help them adjust to the increase in imports. TAA for
Firms represents our part of the commitment we made to these companies,
a commitment we must not now disavow. Small firms have sought TAA
assistance in such volume that there is presently a backlog of $11.2
million in projects that cannot be completed due to lack of funds.
Clearly, the assistance provided by this program is still desperately
needed by small companies trying to compete in a post-NAFTA world. I am
pleased that an agreement has been reached to fund the TAA for Firms
Program in this bill. I believe it is important to retain the only
Federal program that gives these small companies a fighting chance at
survival.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, for his outstanding work on the fiscal year
1997 Appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
State and the Judiciary. This bill places a priority on helping State
and local governments address the most serious problems that affect my
constituents each and every day: illegal immigration, drug trade, and
drug abuse.
Every American should be disturbed by the fact that, after a decade
of declining drug use rates among school children, the last 3 years
have seen a sharp increase in drug abuse. What has caused this alarming
increase? I say it's a lack of leadership. In the 1980's, under the
leadership of President and Mrs. Reagan, our communities started an
effort to Just Say No to drug and drug dealers. Every American
youngster learned that it was cool to stay off drugs and away from drug
dealers.
What do we hear from this White House? It sounds like Just Say I
Don't Know. Days after taking office, President Clinton worked to slash
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, essentially waiving the
white flag in the war on drugs.
This bill, which I am proud to support, jump starts the stalled war
on drugs. We are providing more than $7.1 billion for the War on Drugs,
including an increase of more than $173 million for the Drug
Enforcement Agency ($20 million more than the President's request) and
a new $75 million initiative to restart our international drug
interdiction efforts in Latin America and other overseas areas. This
bill also includes critical funding for a $56 million initiative to
stop drug trafficking along the Southwest border. Much of that will
help restart efforts in San Diego to stop the drug smuggling that has
escaped the administration's Operation Gatekeeper program.
In addition to working for real solutions to our Nation's drug
problem, this bill puts real teeth in our effort to protect our borders
and stop illegal immigration. All told, this bill provides more than
$2.8 billion for enforcement of our immigration laws. We fund the
Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) at $2.2 billion, or $30
million more than the President's request. We put 1,100 new order
patrol agents across our borders (400 more than the President's
request) and pay for 2,700 more prison cells (2000 more than the
President's request) to ensure that illegal aliens are deported from
this country, rather than released onto our streets.
I would like to thank Chairman Rogers again for his leadership in
drafting an outstanding bill that lives up to federal responsibilities
to enforce our borders and stop illegal immigration. I specifically
appreciate his help in including $500 million to reimburse states like
California for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.
While helping to address the alien detention problem in southern
California, Mr. Rogers has been a great help in my including a
provision in the report accompanying this bill that would stop a
misguided Justice Department effort to take over part of a military
base in my district. This provision would direct the Attorney General
to find alternatives to an arrangement that had allowed the Justice
Department to detain illegal aliens in the military brig at NAS
Miramar. This arrangement, for the two weeks that it was in effect last
March, resulted in a riot and a fire that shut that vital national
security base down and severely disrupted the Pentagon's ability to
defend our country.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that will help restart our effort
to stop violent crime, stop illegal immigration, and stop the drug
problems that plague our schools. I commend Chairman Rogers for his
effort and call on Members to support passage of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hutchinson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3814)
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 479, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
[[Page H8293]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3814, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill back promptly with an amendment to increase funding for
contributions to international peacekeeping activities with
appropriate offsets.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to push this to a rollcall
vote. This motion to recommit simply increases funds for peacekeeping
with appropriate offsets in the bill. I am offering the motion to
indicate my concern about the level of funding for that program.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, urge a ``no'' vote,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246,
nays 179, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No 352]
YEAS--246
Archer
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Combest
Costello
Cramer
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boehner
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burton
Chabot
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
Dellums
Dingell
Doolittle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ewing
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Funderburk
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy
McIntosh
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1534
Mr. MOAKLEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RIGGS, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________