[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8219-S8222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TIIAP-FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that Senate
appropriators have restored $10.5 million to the Telecommunications
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP]. TIIAP is a
highly competitive, merit-based, grant program that provides seed money
for innovative, practical technology projects across the United States.
TIIAP grants help our communities utilize the information
technologies that play an increasingly important role in the world
economy. Without access to advanced telecommunications services that
deliver education, healthcare, social services, and news, individuals
and sometimes entire communities are relegated to second-class economic
status. Rural and low income regions that already face difficult
economic hurdles are pushed even farther behind because they lack the
resources to join the information revolution. The Federal assistance
provided by TIIAP has already helped many of these areas transition
into the information economy.
In my home State of Nebraska, TIIAP has helped the city of Crete
purchase computers to build an access center where adults are taught
computer skills and are given assistance to apply those skills to new
jobs. Through the Nebraska Network for Children and Families, a TIIAP
grant provides funding for the Ideas Network. The Ideas Network is an
interactive place where Nebraska families and professionals involved in
the human services system may find information, dialog opportunities,
education resources, advocacy information, and supportive
relationships. Specifically, this valuable network is devoted to
Nebraska's foster families, subsidized adoptive families, families of
children with special needs, and human service professionals.
TIIAP is a matching grant program. Since 1994, $79 million in Federal
grant funds generated investment of $133 million of local funds.
Underfunding this productive program would have been a tremendous
mistake. Without the seed money provided by TIIAP, valuable community
building projects such as the Ideas Network would not be possible. This
innovative program is an important component of better education,
health care and improved community relations.
Jacob Wetterling Act
Mr. DeWINE. I wish to ask my colleague from New Hampshire a question.
It is my understanding that the Senator from New Hampshire has authored
language in this appropriations bill that amends the Jacob Wetterling
Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act?
Mr. GREGG. Yes, I have worked hard to address some technical changes
to this act that I believe will improve the procedure for the
registration of sex offenders, and raise States' compliance with its
provisions.
Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and
believe that you have improved this important law. However, the
attorney general of Ohio has raised an issue shared by a majority of
States that I am compelled to address.
Current law under the Jacob Wetterling Act requires that States
[[Page S8220]]
create a special State board. This board must be composed of experts in
the field on the behavior and treatment of sexual offenders, victims'
rights advocates, and representatives of law enforcement to determine
when someone is a sexually violent predator. Currently, according to
the Department of Justice, 37 States would not meet this requirement.
Mr. GREGG. Yes, that is my understanding. States are given 2 years to
establish such a board.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is also my understanding the Senator
from New Hampshire is working with the Department of Justice to assure
that your proposed language in the bill before us would provide a
waiver for impacted States, such as Ohio, who for differing reasons,
may not specifically meet the requirements of having a special State
board. My State, as well as many others, however, have alternative
methods that fairly, efficiently, and scientifically make the
determination when someone is a sexual predator. Is that correct?
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Ohio is correct.
Mr. DeWINE. Is it my friend from New Hampshire's intention that his
language would allow for States like Ohio and New Hampshire a waiver by
the attorney general in these types of situations?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct. It is certainly my intention that the
U.S. Department of Justice would be as flexible as possible in working
with States to determine compliance on this matter.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his fine work
to ensure States have the administrative flexibility to meet the goal
of the Jacob Wetterling law.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the $1,675,000
request for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology [EPSCoT] Program reported in the Senate appropriations bill,
S. 1022. EPSCoT, which is part of the Commerce Department's Technology
Administration, is an important program for our Nation's rural States.
Its aim is to help foster regional technology-based economic growth in
the 18 States that are traditionally underrepresented in Federal
research and development funding.
EPSCoT evolved during the 104th Congress from a series of discussions
between the Technology Administration and the Senate Subcommittee on
Science, Technology, and Space which I chaired along with Senator
Rockefeller, the ranking minority member. Dr. Mary Good, who retired as
the Undersecretary of Technology in June, recognized the importance of
initiating, maintaining, and enhancing research development and
technology in all States of this Nation. Using the highly successful
National Science Foundation Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR] as its model, EPSCoT was originated to serve as its technology
counterpart. The States are ready to proceed since they can use their
existing EPSCoR State network to now help build a strong technology
infrastructure throughout this country.
This program receives bipartisan support. While EPSCoT will be a
competitive, cost-shared, merit-based grants program, the actual
details are now being worked out through a series of public meetings
with representatives from State and local government, regional
organizations, small businesses, and universities. In June, we held one
of three regional policy forums in Billings, MT. We heard from the
people that will be participating in this program. They provided the
feedback and advice about how EPSCoT should be designed to meet their
unique needs to develop and sustain a long-term technology-based
economic infrastructure in the region.
A successful EPSCoT program could also provide a mechanism to relieve
some of the concerns raised in opposition to the Advanced Technology
Program [ATP]. I believe that ATP plays an important role in the
development of emerging and enabling technologies critical for
sustaining a strong economy. However, it has been viewed as providing
too much support to large companies and, as a result of the way
industry is now clustered, limiting the support to a few specific
regions within the country. There is a strong call for wider
participation and greater diversity of partnerships in the Department
of Commerce.
In Montana, 98 percent of the businesses are considered small
businesses. Generally, small businesses do not have the capacity or the
resources necessary to undertake or maintain the research and support
activities which larger businesses and industries maintain as part of
their on-going activities. To the extent that such support exists in
these States, it usually comes from local universities. EPSCoT is a
vehicle to assist the largely rural States to develop regional
clusters, spin-off companies, and other small high technology
companies. It will help small businesses and industries which are
emerging in Montana and other rural States to be successful and
globally competitive. This program, with sufficient support, will be
successful in stimulating technology development and transfer. EPSCoT
will foster the scientific and technological infrastructure necessary
for job creation and economic growth.
Mr. President, for these reasons, I strongly support the funds
provided to launch EPSCoT. This is an investment to spur economic
growth in rural areas that are key to an overall healthy American
economy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to commend
the members of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee
for including $1,675,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Technology [EPSCoT] in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations
request. This program model is based on the successful National Science
Foundation's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR].
EPSCoR has a strong track record in helping to promote quality
research in States, like West Virginia, that are traditionally under
represented in Federal research and development funding. EPSCoT is
intended to promote similar activities for technology transfer.
This is a wise investment with bipartisan support. Senator Burns and
I have discussed this concept and its potential, and we have sought the
comments of leaders in our states and regions.
Technology plays a vital role in economic growth. According to the
Congressional Research Service, experts widely believe that
technological progress is responsible for up to one-half of the growth
of the U.S. economy and is one principal driving force in long-term
economic expansion and increases in our Nation's standard of living.
Given this compelling point, it is essential to ensure that technology
is successfully transferred to business and industry in every region,
including those regions which historically are under served. Our Nation
will not thrive if some regions are left behind in the key sectors of
R&D or technology transfer.
The National Science Foundation's EPSCoR program has considerably
helped States enhance their capacity for research and development. The
Department of Commerce is now looking to use this successful model for
technology transfer. It is important to note that this initiative has
been debated and considered for quite some time. Commerce officials
have worked closely with Governors and U.S. Innovation Partnership.
As a longstanding advocate for EPSCoR, I am enthusiastic about the
potential for this new Commerce initiative, EPSCoT, to effectively
build partnerships at the State level and promote technological
advances that will lead to long-term growth in regions of our country
that traditionally have been left behind. I am confident that West
Virginia and other States can benefit enormously by such a targeted
incentive program. This appropriations is a good start in the right
direction on technology transfer.
Funding of the Patent and Trademark Office
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just take a moment to discuss the
important issue of the funding of the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO]
that is contained in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary
appropriations bill that the Senate will vote on later today. As my
colleagues know, Mr. President, the PTO has been entirely funded by
user fees for several years now. Not one cent of general taxpayer
[[Page S8221]]
money goes to the operation of that vital office. Thus, it is my belief
that all the money generated by the user fees should be available for
use by the PTO.
Unfortunately, in the last few years, increasingly large amounts of
money have been diverted from the PTO. The patent surcharge, which was
instituted to make the PTO self-funding, has been the target of this
diversion. That is why I was very pleased when the surcharge, which is
scheduled to expire after fiscal year 1998, was not renewed. I had
advocated that it not be renewed and, with the support of Senators
Domenici and Lautenberg, the chairman and ranking member of the Budget
Committee, it was not.
In addition to the surcharge, this bill contains new PTO funding
issues. First, the bill set aside $20 million to fund an office called
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Policy,
should such an office be created. This office does not yet exist but is
advocated by the administration, which seeks to add it to my Omnibus
Patent Act, S. 507. I am negotiating with the administration with
regard to the possible creation of such an office. But one thing seems
clear: if that office is created, it will not need a budget of $20
million. Thus, I cosponsored an effort by Senator Lautenberg to reduce
that amount.
I want to thank both Senator Lautenberg for his efforts and Senator
Gregg for agreeing to modify that provision. Instead of $20 million,
the bill now sets aside an amount up to 2 percent of the PTO budget.
That is a maximum of about $14 million. That is a more realistic
number, and, I suspect that, should the office be created, it would not
even need that much.
The second new issue raised by this legislation deals not with the
surcharge, but with the base fees. In the past, the PTO has been
permitted to collect and spend whatever amount of base fees is
generated in a given year. This is logical, since increased filings
will increase work for the PTO but also generate more money with which
to do that work. But this bill sets a cap on the base fees that PTO may
not exceed, regardless of how much they collect. This is of serious
concern to me, Mr. President, as it risks leaving the PTO with an
increased workload but with insufficient funds to conduct proper patent
examinations and trademark registrations.
The House Appropriations Committee did not set a similar cap. Rather,
the House has continued the standard practice of allowing the PTO to
spend whatever the base fees happen to generate. Mr. President, the
language in the Senate version risks leaving the PTO unable to perform
its vital task of protecting the work of Utahns and all other American
inventors. I urge the conference committee to adopt the House language
and not impose a new cap on the Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. President, I led the fight for the balanced budget amendment. In
balancing the budget, it is unjust to force American inventors to bear
a greater burden than the ordinary taxpayer.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this morning I learned from the mayor of
the Village of Owego of a problem he is having with the village's share
of the local law enforcement block grant. As we are concluding the
debate on the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill today, I
thought it might be appropriate to bring the matter to the attention of
the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from South Carolina. I
intend to pursue the matter with the Justice Department, but I may need
to ask their help at some point.
Mayor Hogan informs me that after recently receiving a letter from
the director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance concerning the
application process for fiscal year 1997 funds, and while filling out
the fiscal year 1997 application, village officials discovered that
1996 funds had been available to them. They had never been notified. A
Bureau official then told them that some requests for applications had
been sent to incorrect addresses. Village officials contacted the
supervisor of the nearby Town of Owego, who remembered receiving the
application notice meant for the village. However, the application
deadline passed 9 months ago. The village lost out on $10,840 through
no fault of its own.
Mr. President, $10,840 may not seem to be a large sum these days, but
for the Village of Owego it is. It constitutes three-quarters of 1
percent of the village tax base. If three-quarters of 1 percent of the
total Federal receipts for 1998 were at stake, we would be talking
about $11.7 billion, and that would have our attention. I hope the
Senators from New Hampshire and South Carolina will consider assisting
in this matter if necessary.
Mr. GREGG. I would certainly like to be kept informed about the
situation, and I hope the Senator from New York will do so.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I too would like to know if the Bureau of Justice
Assistance can help.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to express my congratulations
to the distinguished Chairman, Senator Gregg, and Ranking Member,
Senator Hollings, for a very thorough, fair, and bipartisan Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill.
It is my understanding that Chairman Gregg was most respectful of his
ranking member's concerns in drafting this legislation. It is my
further understanding that Chairman Gregg and his staff have embraced
Senator Stevens' philosophy as chairman of our full committee that
embodies open disclosure, full cooperation, and respect for the
interests of the members of both sides of the aisle. As a result, we
have before us an excellent bill, drafted in the spirit of
bipartisanship with the best interest of our Nation at heart.
The appropriation bill before us provides $31.6 billion dollars for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies. This is an increase of $1.4 billion over current levels. It
is about one-half a billion dollars below the President's request,
excluding the administration's request for advanced appropriations.
Again, the committee has demonstrated its commitment toward fighting
crime and supporting law enforcement initiatives by providing the
Department of Justice with $17.3 billion in appropriations. When taking
offsetting collections from fees into account, the Department's total
resources made available in this bill are about $19.3 billion. Within
this amount many important programs are funded, including the
President's COPS on the Beat Program, 1,000 more border patrol agents
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a new block grant
program to address juvenile crime and related programs, and an
increased budget for initiatives addressing violence against women.
Also included is $3.075 billion for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, an increase of $238 million above the current year.
Funding increases are provided to complete the new forensics laboratory
at Quantico, VA, and to combat child exploitation on the Internet. A
total of $1.091 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement
Administration and $332 million for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
Mr. President, we have before us a good bill that I will join
Senators Hollings and Gregg in supporting. In closing, I commend the
work of committee staff. On the majority staff, I acknowledge and thank
Jim Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, and Dana Quam for their
professionalism and spirit of bipartisanship. On the minority side, I
thank Scott Gudes and Emelie East for their many hours of work on this
bill.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just wanted to thank Senator Gregg and
Senator Hollings and their staff for their hard work on this bill and
especially for their efforts in the area of crime prevention. Since the
passage of the Crime Act in 1994, I have worked here in the
Appropriations Committee and on the Senate floor to provide funding for
proven crime prevention programs and to maintain a reasonable balance
between law enforcement and prevention. During that time, Senator Gregg
and I have had our differences over the need for these programs. This
year, however, I was very pleased to work with Senator Gregg on this
issue and these discussions resulted in a total of $75 million for a
new program that expands upon the Juvenile Justice Act's title V. This
program gives local communities broad discretion to fund a variety of
crime prevention efforts, while guaranteeing that not all of our
[[Page S8222]]
anticrime effort goes to law enforcement alone. Consistent with this
initiative, the Judiciary Committee reauthorized title V in the
juvenile crime bill reported out of committee last week.
While this is a large step in the right direction, some small but
effective crime prevention efforts that were funded in last year's bill
have, unfortunately, been eliminated this year--including the
President's Crime Prevention Council. I look forward to working with
Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings to address these problems as we move
forward with this bill.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Senator Gregg and
Senator Hollings for their support of significant crime prevention
funding. In communities across the Nation, their efforts will make a
difference in the lives of millions of young people.
____________________