[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.

                          ____________________