[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.

                          ____________________