[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 108 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7161-H7175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. chairman, on rollcalls No.'s 380-387, I 
was unavoidably detained participating in the primary elections in 
Missouri. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following 
manner: No. 380--H. Con. Res. 213, Yes; 381--Mollohan Amendment on 
Legal Services, Yes; 382--Skaggs Amendment on TV Marti, Yes; 383--
Souder Amendment on drug counts, No; 384--Bass Amendment on ATP, No; 
385--Scott on Truth in Sentencing, No; 386--Gutknecht on Public 
Broadcasting, No; and 387--DeGette on Abortion, Yes.

                              {time}  2200


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant:
       Page 38, after line 9, insert the following:
       Sec.   . The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall 
     conduct a study, not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, of private prisons that evaluates 
     the growth and development of the private prison industry 
     during the past 15 years, training qualifications of 
     personnel at private prisons, and the security procedures of 
     such facilities, and compares the general standards and 
     conditions between private prisons

[[Page H7162]]

     and Federal prisons. The results of such study shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed will each 
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, six prisoners, most of them incarcerated for 
murder, escaped from a private for-profit prison in my congressional 
district. The development of private prisons for profit around America 
is a sign of the times, but in the contract that this private prison 
had these were to be medium security prisoner inmate risks. There is 
still one murderer at large.
  The Traficant amendment simply calls for a study to evaluate the 
growth and development of private for-profit prisons, the training 
qualifications of their personnel, the security program and the quality 
of security programs that they offer and how their standards compare to 
those of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
  It requires that this study be completed in 9 months and that the 
fruits of this study shall be reported to both the Judiciary Committees 
of the House and Senate and the Appropriations Committees of the House 
and Senate. It is just the beginning, because on the D.C. 
appropriations bill, where this contract exists between D.C. prisons 
and the City of Youngstown, and I do not at this point support closing 
that prison, I just want to make sure that the guidelines and the 
contractual stipulations for the inmate risk is as it should be. This 
amendment does not deal with that. That will be handled in the D.C. 
appropriations bill.
  This calls for a study, and with the development of these private 
for-profit prisons, we must make sure their standards are up to par, 
their training is up to par, they are certified. The Bureau of Prisons 
can evaluate them and make recommendations to Congress, because it is a 
sign of the times.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield to the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
additional 2\1/2\ minutes that is allotted to this provision.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side is granted an additional 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings a very somber and 
important point to the body, and he has crafted this amendment which we 
think is appropriate and are prepared and willing to accept.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for having the 
wisdom and the fortitude to persevere to be sure that there is 
something in this bill dealing with a very, very tragic problem in his 
State but potentially a problem in all the other States. I congratulate 
the gentleman on bringing the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the 
ranking member.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, likewise, I echo the sentiments of the 
chairman. The gentleman, who rightly has a very serious concern about 
the situation in his congressional district, has I think approached it 
in the appropriate way.
  The time frame in which he requested he gets a response from the 
Bureau of Prisons I think is appropriate, it is expeditious, and I 
think he is moving in a very smart way. So I support the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I want to congratulate the ex-chair for coming forth with this 
amendment. I think it is very timely and very needed.
  As my colleague knows, one of the things I hope will be in this study 
is that the Governor of the State of Ohio has been told that he does 
not have the power to shut this facility down. Here it is in our State, 
and we do not have the ability to have any control over what is going 
on there, except when they escape, we have got to go out and try to 
find them at the expense of the taxpayers of the State of Ohio and 
other States.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do not want to be misinterpreted here. But I think Governor 
Voinovich has done a good job. The State is looking at it and the 
Federal Government, as we are talking about today, is doing it with the 
Governor to improve matters.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, again we salute the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant) for bringing this matter before us, and we want to be 
of assistance in trying to solve a problem that the Federal Government 
is a part of in a big way. I congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join in a colloquy with the 
subcommittee chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is recognized for 5 minutes 
for the purposes of a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about whether the 
United States Trade Representative is actively enforcing the terms of 
existing trade agreements. Specifically, compelling evidence has been 
provided by the U.S. industry which indicates that actions by at least 
one Japanese company involved in selling insurance products in Japan's 
third sector insurance market are in direct violation of the U.S.-Japan 
insurance agreement.
  For over a year I have asked the USTR to open an investigation into 
this matter, but until recently such acts has not been taken. However, 
in a recent meeting the USTR committed to several Members of Congress 
that she would hold an open, fair, and complete interagency review of 
this matter.
  However, unofficial reports from the interagency meetings indicate 
that government officials outside of the USTR are calling for a full 
30-day investigation of these allegations. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope 
that the USTR will hold a fair and open interagency review and will 
heed the advice of those agency officials calling for a full 
investigation.
  As the chairman knows, I was prepared to offer an amendment to reduce 
funding for the USTR, but because of my concerns that existing trade 
agreements are not being enforced, I will not offer the amendment. And 
at this time, as the bill moves forward through the process, I would 
appreciate the support of the chairman in pursuing alternative remedies 
if the USTR fails to live by the commitment that she has made to the 
Members.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns that have been 
raised by the gentleman and others. I agree that the USTR should fully 
enforce existing trade agreements, and expect the USTR to fulfill the 
commitments she has made to the Members.
  I will be glad to work with the gentleman and others in the future to 
ensure that this occurs.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stand and associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 4276 which 
would have reduced funding for the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative.
  A number of my colleagues and I have been deeply concerned that the 
USTR has not adequately enforced that U.S.-Japan insurance

[[Page H7163]]

trade agreement. There is considerable material supporting the claim 
that Yasuda Fire and Marine, Japan's second largest insurance company, 
had entered the so-called third sector of Japan's insurance marketplace 
in violation of the agreement, which reserves this sector to American 
firms until the other insurance sectors are open to U.S. companies. 
There is considerable evidence, which was outlined last month in the 
Congressional Record, that Yasuda has circumvented the agreement.
  Initially it was my view, and the view of a number of my colleagues, 
that the interagency review be undertaken as promptly as possible. 
Indeed, we had hoped it would be completed within a time frame that 
would afford members of the Appropriations Committee and others a 
chance to understand its conclusions prior to leaving for the August 
District Work Period. However, given the large volume of evidence that 
has been submitted, the expressed need among members of the interagency 
group to more closely focus on the activities of Yasuda, and the broad 
implications that matter has for the sustainability of the U.S.-Japan 
insurance agreement, it is now our view that the interagency process 
requires more time. In fact, a too quick review of this important 
matter would be a disservice to the aims and goals of the agreement.
  With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, and trusting that sufficient time 
will be given to all participants in the interagency group to conduct a 
thorough review, I shall not offer my amendment at this time. However, 
I would encourage conferees on the bill to be aware of this situation 
and to be open to initiatives to address it if necessary. It is my hope 
that by then the agencies involved will have had an opportunity to 
study in depth, including an on ground study investigation to full 
insure that Yasuda is not violating the agreement, the critical 
situation faced by American companies wishing to remain and compete in 
Japan's third sector insurance market.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not commend the USTR, 
Ambassador Barshefsky and her Deputy Richard Fisher for their 
willingness to meet with members of Congress to hear our concerns. I 
was also very pleased she commenced a full interagency review of the 
case and the specific questions we have raised regarding this matter.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have a copy of the USTR letter of this date dealing with this whole 
issue. It appears that she is committed, one, to cooperate fully with 
the GAO review that will be looking at this entire issue, as well as 
reconvening, as I think the gentleman indicated, the interagency 
process.
  I just wanted to be clear, based on the conversation of the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) with the chairman, that at this point we are 
not asking for yet another review of this, and we are relying on the 
USTR to follow through on that commitment.
  Is that essentially correct?
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we are asking 
for, and we have received cooperation from the trade representative, 
Ms. Barshefsky, is for full interagency review. That is taking place 
today, and we are very appreciative of their cooperation in doing this.
  It has come to our attention that some of the agencies that are 
involved in the review feel like it may be necessary for that agency 
involved in the review, not USTR, to do an investigation of their own 
for over a 30-day period, maybe even with involving a trip to Japan for 
some investigating procedures. That is what we are speaking of. There 
is nothing to mandate that they go along with that or that they do 
that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to the inquiry by the 
gentleman, I would just like to say that Ms. Barshefsky, as well as her 
Associate Deputy Representative Fisher, have done an outstanding job in 
responding to the Members of Congress in the last week and have done an 
outstanding job bringing together the various factions to discuss this 
issue.
  But, in further response to the inquiry of the gentleman, I have 
requested that Mr. Fisher contact Ms. Barshefsky and ask her to do an 
on-ground investigation of Yasuda, because in my opinion, Yasuda, the 
Japanese insurance company, is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of 
the United States insurance industry by buying a 10-percent interest in 
an American company and contending that that is a foreign country when 
they already have an agreement, as soon as this thing is expiring, then 
they can take over that entire entity.
  So I have asked for an on-ground investigation for further requests, 
but she has not committed to that. And she has been most cooperative in 
the last week or so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) 
has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim an 
additional 5 minutes and to allot the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I just was happy to hear the comments of the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) that USTR really is being forthcoming in trying to 
address this issue. I know the gentleman was very concerned about it 
when we marked up the bill in full committee, and I appreciate learning 
that she and her staff are being responsive to his concerns.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I have the highest 
respect for the colleagues who are involved and who have expressed 
these concerns, I would point out to these gentlemen that this 
insurance issue is not new. The Yasuda/INA venture, which is controlled 
by a Pennsylvania-based employer, was announced on July 7, 1993, well 
in advance of the 1994 and 1996 U.S.-Japan trade agreements.
  Furthermore, by the very terms of those agreements, this venture, 
which is 90 percent owned by a Pennsylvania company, is permitted to 
compete in Japan. Indeed, there have been ongoing discussions between 
Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Commerce staff with all 
three interested U.S. companies on this issue for some time now, and 
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means has asked the GAO to review progress in 
opening up Japanese markets, including a review of the specific matter.
  While I recognize that reasonable people can differ, one fact that is 
not disputed by any of the parties is that one U.S. company controls 80 
percent of the Japanese third sector market, another U.S. company 
controls roughly 10 percent, and the Pennsylvania company controls 
about 3 percent of the market.
  For these reasons, I feel strongly that we need to have an objective 
review. I think the USTR has done that so far, and I strongly support 
their effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the committee recognizes the value of the work 
done by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and that 
a reduction in that office's appropriation below your recommendation 
could have a profoundly negative affect on our ability to open foreign 
markets to U.S. products and services. Additionally budget reductions 
could damage pending international negotiations to further open foreign 
markets for our agricultural products--just as our farm communities are 
already suffering--as well as planned negotiations to allow U.S. 
financial companies to fairly compete overseas.
  For these reasons, I must object to the gentleman's statements and 
object to any direction to the Administration with regard to their 
current review of the Japanese Insurance Agreement. My understanding is 
the gentlemen, and other Members, have requested the Administration to 
again review a prior interagency decision on this issue. Any 
Congressional direction would interfere with the very process the 
gentleman has requested, as well as disturb an ongoing substantive, 
legal process and I would ask the Chairman not to agree to any such 
legislative history.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky for the fair and 
evenhanded way he has approached this dispute between various U.S. 
companies and his willingness to see that all parties in this matter 
are treated fairly without bringing any undue pressure on the USTR to 
force them to advantage one American

[[Page H7164]]

company at the expense of another. I look forward to working with the 
gentlemen on this issue in the future and I look forward to supporting 
the Committee's budget for the USTR.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman for 
withdrawing the amendment. I think it was a bit heavy-handed and I 
think that they made their point.
  I just want to clarify, in all this, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) is trying to affect process here, not substance, as I 
understand it. Is the gentleman satisfied with the responsiveness?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will yield, yes, I am satisfied that 
the Trade Representative has responded to our initial request and, that 
is, to involve all of the agencies that have some jurisdiction over 
this issue. However, the Yasuda Insurance Company in Japan, it is true 
most of the insurance is controlled by one American firm, but by this 
insurance company who does about 3 percent of the business selling out 
to a Japanese firm and with an agreement to buy all of it after the 
expiration date of this treaty gives them a distinct advantage over 
American insurance interests. I further requested of the Trade 
Representative that she do an on-ground investigation into the Yasuda 
purchase of the 10 percent interest in the American company.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman talks about substance when he gets into 
this issue, and I just want to clarify that what he is asking from the 
Trade Representative is that they have an exhaustive study and 
investigation of this. He is not asking for a particular result to come 
out of this.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I am not asking for a result. I am just asking that the 
Trade Representative look deeply into this issue to see whether or not 
the 10 percent acquisition by the Japanese firm of the American firm is 
violative of the agreement that is in existence. I have asked her for 
what they have termed as an on-ground investigation into the matter. 
But in defense of the Trade Representative, she has been most 
responsive in the last 2 weeks.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 
the Trade Representative on this subject to clarify her position.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                    U.S. Trade Representative,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1998.
     Hon. Alan Mollohan,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
         Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Mollohan: I am writing to express my 
     strong opposition to the amendment filed by Rep. Collins, and 
     any other proposal, to reduce appropriations for the Office 
     of the United States Trade Representative for the next fiscal 
     year. This amendment is ill-considered and would severely 
     impair our ability to open markets around the world for U.S. 
     workers and companies.
       The amendment filed today is an effort to pressure USTR 
     into reversing a recent decision involving complex factual 
     and legal issues regarding the application of the U.S.-Japan 
     Insurance Agreement. The dispute over this question has 
     divided the U.S. insurance industry. The amendment is 
     prompted by a single American insurance company that 
     disagrees with the Administration's decision.
       The underlying dispute in question involves three American 
     insurance companies that compete against each other in the 
     ``third sector'' of the Japanese insurance market, which has 
     been set aside largely for U.S. and other non-Japanese firms. 
     The disagreement concerns whether a subsidiary that is 90-
     percent-owned by one of the American companies should, 
     despite its overwhelming American ownership, be deemed to be 
     a Japanese company and whether the activities of this company 
     therefore violate the U.S.-Japan insurance agreement. For 
     obvious reasons, compelling evidence would be needed to find 
     that a 90 percent American-owned subsidiary is in fact 
     Japanese. USTR conducted an extensive review of the arguments 
     made by the parties and of all of the facts presented. 
     Moreover, USTR made certain that the arguments were presented 
     to and the matter reviewed by the interagency process. The 
     evidence provided did not demonstrate that the subsidiary in 
     question is Japanese, and the decision the Administration 
     reached reflected that fact.
       Separate from this decision, the Administration told the 
     Japanese Government that it has failed to comply with key 
     aspects of the Agreement regarding access to its largely 
     closed insurance sector (the so-called primary insurance 
     sector). As a result, we have told the Japanese that they may 
     not invoke those provisions of the Agreement that would 
     otherwise have opened the third sector of the Japanese 
     insurance market on January 1, 2001.
       It would be highly inappropriate for USTR's funding--which 
     we use to secure export opportunities for all of America's 
     workers and firms--to be reduced based on the urging of one 
     company, regarding one issue, in a single sector of one 
     foreign market. This is especially true given that the U.S. 
     insurance industry is split over the issue and that USTR has 
     taken strong steps just this month to hold Japan to its 
     commitments under the Insurance Agreement. Moreover, the 
     General Accounting Office will shortly be undertaking a 
     review of the operation of the entire Insurance Agreement, 
     including the disputed issue. In addition, at the request of 
     interested Members, we have reconvened the interagency 
     process to again review the matter.
       If enacted, the amendment introduced today would impair 
     USTR's ability to reduce trade barriers around the world and 
     to enforce the agreements we have already negotiated, 
     including the Insurance Agreement itself. This Administration 
     has a strong record of opening markets and enforcing our 
     trade agreements. The Insurance Agreement is no exception.
       The Insurance Agreement already has provided enormous 
     benefits to the U.S. insurance industry, and USTR has worked 
     diligently to make sure that Japan abides by the commitments 
     it has made.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charlene Barshefsky.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out, we understand fully 
the ownership of INA in Japan. That is not the question. The question 
is in the activities of the Yasuda Insurance Company in Japan and what 
they are doing to affect the market of the third sector insurance 
market in Japan. As far as the investigations, we are very pleased that 
the Trade Representative is conducting a full interagency review. 
However, we would hope that the Trade Representative would not prohibit 
or try to discourage any agency that is in the interagency review from 
doing a further investigation as far as their agency is concerned. That 
is what we are speaking of.


                Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 40, line 8 insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 40, line 12 insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 40, line 13 insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 40, line 16 insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 76, line 3 insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 101, line 21 insert ``(decreased by $2,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) will each control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. This 
amendment is cosponsored by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez). It increases funding for the Women's Demonstration 
Projects, currently known as the Women's Business Centers, from $4 
million to $6 million for fiscal year 1999.
  The Women's Business Centers currently have more than 60 centers in 
over two-thirds of the States. The centers offer financial management, 
marketing and technical assistance to current and potential women 
business owners. Each center tailors its style and offerings to the 
particular needs of its community. The SBA with the support of the 
Congress and the Administration plans to expand the program adding 30 
new centers so that there will be a center in every State, including 
the State of Vermont.
  Fostering the growth of small, women-owned businesses is a smart 
investment. Women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other 
businesses and own more than one-third of all firms in the United 
States. They contribute $2.3 trillion to the economy. The 8 million 
women-owned firms employ 18.5 million people, or one in every five U.S. 
worker, and 35 percent more people in the United States than the 
Fortune 500 companies employ worldwide.

[[Page H7165]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
We think the gentleman's amendment makes sense. We have conferred with 
him at some length on the matter, we think it is a good amendment, and 
we accept it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Velazquez amendment. My colleagues, the face of business is changing. 
We are seeing a phenomenal growth in the number of women-owned 
businesses. In 1976, women owned just 6 percent of our Nation's 
businesses. Today, 20 years later, that number has grown to 36 percent. 
That is over 8 million businesses owned by women. By the year 2000 it 
is expected that one out of every two businesses will be owned by a 
woman.
  These centers provide a broad range of training and counseling 
services to women in the areas of finance, management and marketing. By 
tailoring their services to the needs of the local community, Women's 
Business Development Centers have given women-owned businesses a 
fighting chance. They have also played an important role in amplifying 
the voice of women business owners.
  In New York City, one center is working with women who are welfare 
recipients to start their own business, and they are succeeding. On the 
two-year anniversary of the President's signing the welfare bill into 
law, moving from welfare to work is still a great achievement. Moving 
from welfare to self-employment is pure inspiration. Women's Business 
Development Centers help make this dream possible. The Sanders-
Velazquez amendment will ensure that this dream is a reality for many, 
many women. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer my support 
for the Women's Business Center program. This program has served the 
State of Oklahoma extremely well.
  The Women's Business Center in Oklahoma City, serving all of central 
Oklahoma's women entrepreneurs, is a tremendous example of a public-
private partnership. Not only does this very ``entrepreneurial'' non-
profit organization leverage its federal grant 2:1 with community 
support, it has created a unique program offering a ``support-system'' 
to micro-entrepreneurs. First and foremost, the organization offers 
hands-on training led by successful entrepreneurs. Over the past 3 
years more than 2,000 people have attended training workshops with more 
than 250 participating in an in-depth 45 hour business expansion 
course.
  An example in my district is Rosemary Carslile, owner of Mattress and 
Furniture Direct in Norman, Oklahoma. She has been in business for more 
than 5 years, yet after training, coaching and mentoring from the 
Women's Business Center program her sales increased by 40%.
  Another success story is Deborah Clark owner of Prarie Moons also of 
Norman. Deborah not only received business plan development assistance, 
but was able to secure start-up financing for her retail store thanks 
to connections made through the Women's Business Center.
  Expanded funding for this program nationwide would achieve the Small 
Business Committee's goal of one women's business center in every 
state. Women Business owners represent the fastest growing segment of 
our economy, with more than two-thirds of all new businesses being 
started today by women. These programs focus on issues specific to 
micro-enterprise and the needs of emerging entrepreneurs.
  I am delighted to support increased funding for this very important 
program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

       Amendment No. 44 offered by Mr. Pallone:
       Page 52, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) each will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, polluted runoff into our bays, lakes, rivers and 
estuaries is the Nation's number one water pollution problem and 
affects over half of all Americans who live along the coast. It also 
impacts the 32 percent of the Nation's gross national product that is 
derived from coastal areas and resources.
  This amendment, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), increases funding for the coastal nonpoint pollution 
program and the Coastal Zone Management Act to meet the levels in the 
Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. Both of these programs 
provide invaluable financial assistance to the States to deal with the 
problems of coastal nonpoint pollution. More specifically, the Pallone-
Gilchrest amendment provides an additional $4 million for coastal 
States to complete their coastal nonpoint source pollution control 
programs.
  Since 1995, only $1 million has been appropriated for this purpose. 
The amendment also adds $1 million in coastal zone management grants so 
that all eligible coastal States can receive maximum support from this 
program, including three newly eligible States, Minnesota, Ohio and 
Georgia. These grants are used for important projects such as 
waterfront revitalization, improving public access to beaches, and 
controlling coastal nonpoint source pollution, the country's leading 
cause of water quality problems.
  Finally, the amendment increases funding for coastal zone management 
enhancement grants by $3 million. This funding is particularly 
important to those States which have already reached the existing cap 
in coastal zone management funding. This is a modest amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, $8 million in all, but it is an amendment that will have an 
enormous impact for 30 coastal States and four territories. It is money 
that can easily be leveraged. The coastal zone management program has a 
proven $2 return for every Federal dollar invested.
  Mr. Chairman, clean water is not only important for our environment, 
it is important for our ports and tourism industry. I urge my 
colleagues to join the gentleman from Maryland and myself in casting a 
vote for clean water and adopting this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to be 
sure that every Member knows what he or she is voting for if they vote 
for this amendment.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to cut critical Weather Service 
programs. Ninety-eight percent of the moneys the gentleman proposes to 
cut pays for the critical equipment and computer systems now being put 
in your local Weather Service offices as a part of the Weather Service 
modernization and for the weather satellites that these offices depend 
on to provide weather warnings and forecasts to your constituents. 
Fifteen million dollars worth.
  The other program his amendment would cut is the construction of the 
National Marine Fisheries Service lab being constructed now at Santa 
Cruz, California. These are the cuts that are being made by this 
amendment.
  I just cannot support cutting these important programs related to the 
National Weather Service. I appreciate the gentleman's support for 
clean water programs, and I would say to the gentleman that this 
subcommittee has

[[Page H7166]]

been very supportive of these programs. Despite the very difficult 
funding constraints that we faced, we increase funding for clean water 
programs by over 17 percent. This bill provides over $70 million for 
these activities, including an 8 percent increase for grants to States 
under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  While I can appreciate that the gentleman would like to have seen 
more, I would have liked to have seen more, we simply had to make hard 
choices and prioritize, and this is the way it came out. Clearly clean 
water programs were a priority as evidenced by the significant increase 
that they received in this bill. But our other priority was ensuring 
that the National Weather Service was adequately funded and that the 
modernization of your local weather offices would be completed so that 
your constituents would have the best weather forecasting that we can 
afford. I think it is foolhardy to cut this priority in order to fund 
any other program.
  Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Pallone-Gilchrest 
amendment. This amendment would add $8 million to the coastal nonpoint 
pollution program which is of vital importance to my coastal district 
in North Carolina and other coastal areas throughout the Nation that 
are faced with pollution threats daily.
  Just last week a fish kill killing approximately 200,000 menhaden 
occurred along the Neuse River in North Carolina that can be attributed 
to the deadly toxin pfiesteria. The coastal nonpoint program has 
allowed North Carolina to adopt nutrient-sensitive waters strategies 
for the river.
  The coastal nonpoint pollution program allows States to develop and 
implement plans to control coastal runoff. Each State may use the grant 
money to best fit its needs, if it be improving pesticide and nutrient 
management or improving storm water treatment. The program is flexible 
enough to help States solve the problems, the problems in each 
individual State.
  The Pallone-Gilchrest amendment does three important things. First, 
it provides critical money for the States to draft these plans; second, 
it provides money for the implementation of these plans; and, third, it 
provides much-needed money for the new Coastal Zone Management 
programs.
  As summer wears on, more and more constituents of ours will be 
vacationing along our oceans and waterways. It is important, even for 
noncoastal Members, that we fully fund these programs and address the 
needs of waterways.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Pallone-Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), my distinguished friend.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
Pallone amendment, reluctant because I strongly support the clean water 
initiative and would love to see $8 million more put into that account. 
Unfortunately, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment because of 
the offset, a $15 million reduction in NOAA procurement, acquisition 
and construction.
  Now, first of all, why would we be taking $15 million from NOAA 
procurement, acquisition and construction when we are only increasing 
the clean water grants by $8 million? It is because we have an outlay 
problem with regard to it, and it takes more money out of NOAA 
construction to get $8 million for clean water grants. So we are not 
talking about an $8 million reduction, we are really talking about 
almost twice that much, a $15 million reduction in these accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, these accounts can ill afford to be reduced. These are 
the NOAA weather accounts primarily. Ninety-eight percent of the money 
in NOAA procurement is for weather, either for satellites or for the 
Weather Service. We can ill afford to reduce that money, and this 
committee has already reduced the Weather Service by significant 
amounts, roughly $90 million below the President's request or 
thereabouts. We really cannot afford to take any more money out of 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a satellite failure. We need desperately to 
spend money on satellites. We are behind there already. And, in 
addition, the second part of the NOAA procurement account, which this 
$15 million would come out of, is for systems and equipment for the 
National Weather Service. This category includes continued development, 
procurement and acquisition of the AWHPS system, the weather 
forecasting and warning system, which I do not think can afford at all 
to have this money taken out.
  So, while the amendment is very worthy in terms of the account which 
it wants to increase, the offsets make it untenable, and I reluctantly 
oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I know the difficulty of transferring money from one account do 
another account, and I realize and understand the $8 million would 
account for close to, if not including, $15 million from these various 
accounts. It is my understanding, though, that there is a fairly large 
pot of money that is in unobligated funds carried over from one year to 
the next, but I do not want to get into a discussion about fine-tuning 
the amounts of how much money is available for satellites and Weather 
Service and how much money for other areas.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, funds have already been allocated. All the 
unobligated have now been taken.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that 
there is a lot of money that is carried over from year to year. We have 
problems in numerous areas in the NOAA account.
  The point is that this particular issue, which we would like to bring 
before the House tonight, is that there simply is not enough money to 
deal with the problems of nonpoint-source pollution among our coastal 
areas, including the Great Lakes. There simply is not enough money, 
since we realize that 100 percent of the Great Lakes are under a fish 
advisory for consumption by people. The Great Lakes will tell women 
that are pregnant, do not eat any fish. In the Delaware estuary and the 
Delaware River, in the coastal areas around Maryland and Delaware and 
New Jersey, women that are pregnant are told not to eat the fish.
  I recognize the problems with not enough money, but we certainly need 
to understand the nature of the problem of nonpoint-source pollution in 
our coastal areas, and we need to recognize an even more serious 
problem of persistent toxic chemicals that not only are a problem of 
yesterday, are not only a problem of today, but unless these problems 
are dealt with they are a problem for generations to come.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Both of the gentlemen, all three that have spoken in favor of this 
amendment, make very compelling cases, and I guess I am in the awkward 
position of wanting to help love their amendment to death, to 
acknowledge how meritorious their claim is for additional resources but 
then say, as the chairman has, ``Not here.'' Because the account that 
they would be going after by this offset I think has an even more 
critical priority for the country, especially with the very tenuous 
status of our weather satellite system right now. It is already being 
stretched very thin by the constraints in this bill.
  To further eat into this account I think really puts into severe 
jeopardy our overall capability to keep track of weather forecasting, 
severe weather events that carry even greater threat to the health and 
safety of the people of this country than do the risks that the 
gentlemen's amendment would be designed to address.
  So, as with everyone else that has spoken against my colleagues, I do 
so reluctantly.

[[Page H7167]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone-Gilchrest 
amendment to provide full funding for the State Coastal Pollution 
Control Program. This amendment puts funds where they are needed most, 
at the State and local level.
  A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council showed that 
pollution warnings for California beaches went up by almost 8 percent 
last year. In my district, Santa Barbara County issued beach advisories 
on 198 days during 1997, warning the public of elevated bacterial 
levels in the surf, and after the storms of this last year we know that 
the numbers will be even higher.
  This amendment is supported by conservation, commercial and 
recreational fishing and business organizations, as well as many State 
associations and municipalities.
  Mr. Chairman, we must remember that everything runs downstream and 
eventually into the ocean. We cannot continue to treat our waterways as 
a dumping ground for our wastes. Clean waterways are essential to our 
Nation's fishing, tourism and recreation industries, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Pallone-Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone-Gilchrest Amendment to 
provide full funding for State Coastal Pollution Control programs.
  This amendment would provide critically needed funding to protect our 
nation's waterways, oceans, and coastal regions. It would provide full 
funding for NOAA's Clean Water Initiative, a critical component to the 
President's Clean Water Action Plan.
  I had the opportunity to participate in the historic National Ocean 
Conference in Monterey, CA where a variety of topics were discussed 
regarding ocean protection. At follow up conferences which I convened 
in my district, a reoccurring theme was the need to protect our oceans 
from non point sources of pollution.
  Too much pollution from the land runs straight to the sea. Polluted 
runoff--from our nation's roads, farms, grazing, logging, mining, 
housing development, and other land uses, is the single largest threat 
to water quality in this country. This runoff is a major cause of 
increased beach closures and of the current crisis in our fisheries. 
Polluted runoff threatens our ecosystems, our health, and indeed our 
economies.
  This amendments puts funds where they are needed most--at the state 
and local level.
  A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council showed that 
pollution warnings for California beaches went up by almost 8 percent 
last year. In my District, Santa Barbara County issued beach advisories 
warning the public of elevated bacterial level in the surf on 198 days 
during the year 1997. We know the numbers will be higher this year.
  This amendment is supported by conservation, commercial and 
recreational fishing, and business organizations, as well as many State 
associations and municipalities.
  Mr. Chairman, we must remember that everything runs downstream and 
eventually into the ocean. We cannot continue to treat or waterways as 
a dumping ground for our wastes.
  Clean waterways are essential to our nation's fishing, tourism, and 
recreation industries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone-Gilchrist amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter in my hands from the 
Department of Commerce of the administration dated July 31 in which 
they say that they cannot support, in essence, this amendment. They say 
that we cannot support further reductions in this account or other 
Commerce programs, and they say that because they go ahead to say in 
the letter:
  ``The committee bill already reduces this account by $88.2 million, 
and a proposal to reduce PAC by another reduction of $15 million would 
cause delays and increase costs to the Federal Government for the 
remaining projects.''
  That is satellites, that is weather forecasting of the floods and the 
hurricanes and the tornadoes and all the other disasters that we are 
facing already.
  And so I urge the committee not to yield to the temptation to put 
more money in clean water, which we would all like to do, but as the 
gentleman from Colorado says, this is an even higher priority, and that 
is forecasting the weather for our constituents.
  So I urge a defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mrs. LOWEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and with great respect for our chairman and our ranking 
member, I support the amendment of my colleague from New Jersey.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that I notice in one of 
our press releases that this bill does provide $439 million for weather 
satellites, which is a $110 million increase over fiscal year 1998. So 
although this is clearly an important need and we support it, I think 
the greater need here is to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), because from Long Island Sound to Chesapeake 
Bay, from the Gulf of Mexico to San Francisco Bay, nonpoint-source 
pollution is a major cause of water quality impairment.
  In fact, polluted runoff is the number one water problem nationwide, 
causing beach closures, fish kills, oxygen depleting algae bloom, 
shellfish harvest restrictions. The pollution takes a significant toll 
both on the environment and the economies of our coastal areas, an area 
where more than 50 percent of the United States population lives.
  To tackle this threat to our coastal areas, this bill is very, very 
important, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for my colleague.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. 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. Engel:
       Page 47, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 25, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase funding 
for the Public Telecommunication Facilities Program, PTFP, by $5 
million. I support public broadcasting, and I think this is a very 
important amendment to help public broadcasting.
  I am offering this amendment because I believe we must address the 
daunting challenge that the public broadcasters are facing in the 
conversion to digital broadcast transmission. Additional funding for 
PTFP can help with this transition. PTFP is a success story that 
demonstrates what the government and the private sector can accomplish 
when they work together.
  The facilities program is a matching grants plan for public radio and 
television stations. It helps stations purchase equipment to extend 
their signals to unserved areas as well as replace outdated hardware 
such as transmitters, master control rooms or towers. Many of these 
stations are in rural areas and do not have the resources to upgrade 
their systems or receive signals. The facilities program has been an 
unqualified success because it has helped extend public television and 
public radio services to most of the country, and certainly that is a 
very worthwhile endeavor.

[[Page H7168]]

  PTFP is the sole program in the Federal Government that assists in 
the maintenance of the vast public broadcasting inventory, which now 
exceeds an estimated $1 billion in value. Since its inception, PTFP has 
invested $500 million in public telecommunication facilities that 
deliver informational, cultural and educational programming to the 
American people. That is a significant investment in a system that is 
now nearly universal, reaching communities as diverse as Point Barrow, 
Alaska; Jackson, Mississippi; and Los Angeles, California.
  This universality provides an amazing potential for communication 
among Americans as we move further into a digital information age. The 
Federal Communications Commission has mandated that all public 
television stations be on the air with a digital signal by May 2003. 
Public radio stations face a similar transition, although no timetable 
has been set.
  The industry has done extensive research and estimates the costs 
associated with the transition conversion to be $1.7 billion. Public 
broadcasting stations are facing huge financial obstacles with digital 
transition. Tower replacements costing $1 to $3 million are estimated 
for about one-third of public television stations.

                              {time}  2245

  In addition, each analog transmitter and antenna will have to be 
replicated in digital formats over the next seven years at high cost. 
Furthermore, the cost to displace radio stations could run from 
thousands to millions of dollars because of dislocations or structural 
problems with older towers.
  We have an obligation to help public broadcasters finance this 
enormous venture. Public stations must have the ability to keep up with 
changing technologies. With proper resources, we can ensure that the 
public-private partnership between the Federal Government and public 
broadcasting will guarantee that all Americans will continue to benefit 
from the services and programming available through public 
broadcasting.
  I am strongly supportive of a proposal put forth by the President 
that would create a new digital transition program that would help 
stations with digital conversion. While the Committee on Appropriations 
chose not to authorize the program, it is my hope that such a plan can 
be created in the future so that we can properly assist public 
broadcasters with their digital transmission needs.
  This amendment is a modest attempt to help them adapt to the digital, 
and start a dialogue for future actions that can be taken. Let us fully 
support these efforts, so the American people can continue to receive 
the quality programming they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is 
recognized for one minute.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support of his amendment.
  I would like to compliment the gentleman on his fine work, both this 
year and in the past, on behalf of public radio and television. Our 
bill funds PTFP at last year's funding level of $21 million. The 
gentleman's amendment would provide an additional $5 million to help 
our public radio and TV stations convert to digital formatting. This is 
much less than is actually needed, but it represents a good first 
start.
  I want to again rise in support of the amendment, and compliment the 
gentleman for his good efforts.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York. I know the gentleman feels strongly 
about this subject and he would like to help the Public Television 
Facilities Program, but the fact is that that program has been funded 
at $6 million above the President's request. It is a level equal to 
last year. So it has gotten $6 million more than the President 
requested, and level-funded with what was appropriated in this act last 
year.
  Now, public television is certainly popular throughout every region 
of this Nation, but, in the other bill, the Labor-Health-Education 
appropriations bill, we actually appropriate some hundreds of millions 
of dollars in one fashion or another to public television.
  I dare say that as important as this project is, it is not so 
important that it should take $5 million from the already depleted 
funding of Title XI, which provides for maritime construction 
subsidies. That program provided initially, before we came to the floor 
in this bill, some $16 million, and $10 million of that $16 million was 
siphoned away to pay for the increase that Members wanted to apply to 
the Legal Services Corporation.
  Now, our business on the Committee on Appropriations and here in the 
House is to assess priorities. It is obviously a priority of the House 
to meet the higher level funding demand for Legal Services. But the 
maritime subsidy program is not any less important today and at this 
moment than it was when it was written into the bill at $16 million. It 
is currently $6 million because of Legal Services.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) would like to take $5 million 
of the remaining $6 million out for the public television facilities 
grant program. That may be a meritorious program, but that leaves $1 
million for the Maritime Title XI program, which is entirely 
inadequate.
  That program basically is intended to provide guarantees, loan 
guarantees, for U.S. shipbuilders. The fact is we have shipbuilders all 
around this Nation who used to rely on a very robust Naval program, and 
cannot do that anymore because our Navy is not building any ships. If 
we build more than three or four ships in a single year, it is amazing. 
That is not enough to sustain our shipbuilders around this country.
  If this country gets into a major conflict abroad and we need ships, 
we need supplies, we need to recreate the situation that we saw 
ourselves in in Desert Storm, we, quite frankly, could not build the 
ships fast enough to begin with, and, even if we could, we could not 
afford the demand.
  This program allows us for every $1 million to shipbuilders, we can 
actually leverage that into $20 million of loan guarantees for U.S. 
ships, and that creates jobs in the shipbuilding industry.
  I happen to represent a shipbuilding center in south Louisiana. 
Others represent shipbuilding centers around the coastal regions of 
this country. For those Members who represent shipbuilding communities, 
I would say that this is a very, very important program, no less 
important, in fact, a lot more important, than the public television 
facilities grant program. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members consider 
that this program from which the gentleman hopes to take $5 million 
will be crippled if it loses five/sixths of what remains.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I stood up to support this amendment 
based upon the new estimates that there would be as much as $60 or $63 
million carryover. I hope that that happens, and that that addresses 
some of the distinguished chairman's thoughts.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct, there is carry-over, although I think the gentleman's figures 
are greatly inflated. I think it is about half of that.
  I would simply say without those already obligated funds, the current 
contracts would have to be terminated and jobs would be immediately 
lost; and that is not a good idea.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H7169]]

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) 
will be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. 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. Farr of California:
       Page 52, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and a Member opposed will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would support 
an additional $1 million for the National Estuary and Research Reserve 
program. Our Nation's fishery nursery is in these estuaries, which 
supports 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch. I offer the 
amendment by taking carry-over funds from the Saltonstall-Kennedy fund.
  I ask that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he would 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the gentleman on his 
amendment. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have a 
question, if I may, on another issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) if he would respond to a question I have. I would 
like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to 
participate in a brief colloquy regarding the new National Marine 
Fisheries Lab in Santa Cruz, California.
  Some concerns have been expressed regarding the current design of the 
seawater system as it relates to the ability of the laboratory to 
support live marine mammal research. I know on May 12, 1998, in a 
letter to the Department of Commerce, the committee addressed this 
issue and indicated that should additional funds above the current plan 
be necessary to address deficiencies in the system, the committee will 
be willing to entertain a reprogramming request from NOAA for no more 
than $600,000 to cover the costs of any necessary changes.
  My question to the chairman is, does he believe that this is the 
appropriate way to address the issue of the seawater system at the 
Santa Cruz laboratory, and will the gentleman agree to do so?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, the answer is yes.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Page 51, line 9, insert ``(reduced by $180,200,000)'' after 
     ``$180,200,000''.
       Page 51, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $43,000,000)'' after 
     ``$43,000,000''.
       Page 51, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $500,000)'' after 
     ``$500,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed to the 
amendment will each control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Advanced Technology Program provides subsidies to 
multimillion dollar corporations and joint ventures to fund high 
technology research and development. High-tech R&D has been central to 
our economy and continued economic growth, and I have the highest 
praise for these activities.
  However, I take issue in asking the American taxpayers to foot the 
bill for these activities which should be left to the market free of 
politics and free of government meddling.
  Private industry does not need this program and, quite frankly, 
competes unfairly, has to compete with these grants, and we have heard 
from Silicon Valley CEO's who have said that economic rivals, competing 
firms receive these grants, and then compete with them in the 
marketplace.
  In studying ATP, the General Accounting Office found that 65 percent 
of ATP recipients did not even attempt to secure private funding for 
the projects before asking for taxpayer subsidies.
  ATP has created a perverse incentive. Firms come to Washington to 
seek millions of dollars in subsidies provided by working families, 
instead of going first to the private market. Proponents of these 
subsidies claim that cooperation between government and industry is 
essential to compete in the global marketplace. Well, if this kind of 
cooperation were indeed the panacea they claim, then Eastern Europe 
would be the dominant economic superpower in the world. It is not.
  We commend the American economy for being the most productive in the 
world. Our economy was not built on government subsidies and those 
socialist economies that are built on subsidies are economies that are 
failing and attempting to reform along the lines of a free market.
  Now, high-tech R&D will continue if they are deemed worthy by those 
that choose to invest their own money. High definition TV is one of the 
clearest failures of government targeted handouts. Japanese businesses 
with subsidies that totalled $1 billion in the 1980's sought to help 
HDTV using existing analog technology. The French did the same. $1 
billion of their taxpayers' money went into that.
  Luckily, here in the U.S., our administration at the time took a pass 
at providing $1.2 billion in subsidies to compete with these foreign 
rivals. As a result of being denied massive subsidies, American 
companies were forced to develop an alternative with their own money.
  The alternative that AT&T and Zenith developed was a fully digital 
system that made analog Japanese and European systems obsolete. Before 
they were ever put into production, the Japanese and European taxpayers 
lost $2 billion because their governments directed and handed out the 
subsidies. We relied on the market, and, again, it showed that the 
market works.
  We are the economic leader of the world precisely because of the 
relative lack of government involvement in the economy, not because of 
centralization. The market where people choose to put their own money 
at risk should determine what activities should be funded, not 
bureaucrats in Washington using other people's money.
  We have also heard the argument that ATP is the catalyst for high 
tech R&D and is therefore crucial. Well, ATP was appropriated $192 
million, and, as of today, $23 million from last year has not been 
doled out yet. In contrast, over $133 billion was invested last year in 
industrial R&D by the private sector. Over $37 billion of this went to 
applied and basic research. It is obvious the engine driving America's 
dominance in high technology is the result of our vital private sector, 
not government picking winners and losers.

                              {time}  2300

  Many execs in the high tech industry do not support this corporate 
welfare. A Silicon Valley CEO told the Senate, I am here to say that 
such subsidies will hurt my company and our industry because they 
represent tax and spend

[[Page H7170]]

economics. Another venture capitalist knows that ATP grants undercut 
his industry. He said, whenever the government doles out money, it is 
unfair. If money is being offered, you have to apply or else your 
competitors will get it. It took 9 months from when we applied to when 
we were answered, leaving the company in limbo. While his company 
waited, he said, the delay scared off private investors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. He has already touched on the significance of markets. He has 
touched on the significance of fairness.
  I would just add one little postscript to what has been already said 
on how important the Royce amendment is; that is, simply the issue of 
effectiveness. If you think about effective individuals, they are 
individuals that actually focus. If you think about effective 
corporations, whether it is McDonald's or Holiday Inn or Sears & 
Roebuck, they focused.
  The same can be said of governments, governments that try to do too 
many things ultimately are ineffective. If we are to get monetary 
policy right and defense policy right and Social Security checks on 
time, this government too has to be limited. And for that reason alone, 
I would stand in support of the Royce amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, besides the question of 
the constitutionality of these types of subsidies, let us begin with 
the task of lifting this enormous burden, this enormous government off 
the backs of America's taxpayers by taking the small step to reduce 
wasteful subsidies.
  I ask my colleagues to join Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and other 
groups in support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member in opposition to the amendment?
  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.
  We have had similar debate earlier today in which I pointed out that 
the ATP program is the centerpiece of the administration's research and 
its strategy to maintain its competitiveness in the global marketplace.
  I also pointed out that this is in real competition with other 
countries around the world who are investing strategically, governments 
are investing strategically and far more deeply than the United States. 
Nevertheless, this program, however small relative to those other 
strategic investments by government and civilian technology research, 
it is an important program. It is a program that is getting better.
  It has listened to its critics who have expressed concern about too 
much of the money going to large corporations. The program has been 
reconstituted by the Secretary of Commerce, taking into consideration 
those concerns, so that the grantees of these monies are increasingly 
consortium groups, including academia, small businesses, increasingly, 
and, of course, large businesses also, all of it directed at 
precompetitive, generic technology development, which would not 
otherwise be undertaken by private industry.
  ATP is decidedly not corporate welfare. That is not what it is about. 
It is not about picking winners and losers. It is also not about 
product development. ATP is about funding the research and development 
efforts behind high risk technologies.
  While the government provides a catalyst, industry can seize, manage 
and execute along with academician and nonprofit sector partners, these 
ATP projects. These funds are risky. ATP funds are risky. They are 
precompetitive technologies, and they are strategically picked out to 
ensure America's competitiveness in core sectors.
  That has a big potential payoff for this country, as we are in 
competition with the world's economy. It is a program that was 
bipartisan in its initiation. Although it has become political, it has 
become a political issue, a partisan issue in recent years, less so 
maybe in the last several years, it was conceived in a very nonpartisan 
way under the President Reagan's administration and was authored by a 
former Republican member of Congress, the distinguished member from 
Pennsylvania, Don Ritter.
  I remember well his support for this program. He particularly 
appreciated the benefits of the government being a strategic partner in 
ensuring America's competitiveness by focusing in these strategic areas 
and providing some seed catalyst money by the government to make sure 
that these precompetitive technology research efforts went forward.
  I strongly support the program. I believe that the Congress 
increasingly is coming to support the program. I would hope that that 
would be expressed by defeating the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  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 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
       Page 78, strike line 15, and all that follows through line 
     6 on page 79.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and a Member opposed, each 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This is a very simple amendment. It simply strikes the funding for 
the payment of U.N. debt arrearages, and I do this for several reasons.
  First of all, whatever debt we owe for arrearages and dues has 
already been paid several times over by our participation in legitimate 
U.N. peacekeeping activities.
  First of all, here is a GAO report that says that between 1992 and 
1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N. 
peacekeeping activities. Recognizing the legitimacy of this, the U.N. 
has credited us with $1.8 billion of that against back dues, no credit 
for the remainder.
  Secondly, here is a CRS report, more recently. This report covers 
from 1992 to May of last year. This report says that we have spent 
during that time period $11.1 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping 
activities. This, of course, includes the monies that were in the GAO 
report.
  In addition to that, the Pentagon itself, in two reports that I have, 
one for last year which says that just last year alone we spent $2.9 
billion on U.N. peacekeeping activities, the other report says that the 
year before last we spent $3.3 billion on U.N. peacekeeping activities. 
So whatever back dues we might owe, we have paid them several times 
over as indicated by these reports by our participation in legitimate 
U.N. peacekeeping activities.
  This past spring President Clinton requested $1.36 billion in 
emergency funds for the Department of Defense to pay for the ongoing 
mission in Iraq. Recognizing that this was a U.N. peacekeeping 
activity, the United States, Kofi Annan said, would be required to get 
U.N. approval prior to bombing Iraq.
  These monies were spent in pursuit of a legitimate U.N. peacekeeping 
activity. The CRS reports that in 1995, the U.S. State Department 
estimated that the United States paid for 54 percent of all United 
Nations peacekeeping activities. We are required to pay for just over 
30 percent; clearly, a big surplus that should be credited against our 
dues.
  The second reason for striking this language is that the United 
Nations is not reforming. A year ago we put them on notice that they 
would get back

[[Page H7171]]

dues when they had reformed. They are clearly not reforming. They are 
putting 100 new people on when they said they were going to reduce 
their staff. And a committee of the United Nations itself, the General 
Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
said, and I quote, Mr. Kofi Annan's report was wrong to say U.N. 
headquarters staff had to support 4,921 troops. He wants a big 
headquarters staff to support nearly 5000 troops, but those troops are 
reduced to zero, this committee said, by July 1, 1998. He still has the 
staff there.
  Another reason, a third reason for striking these funds is that we 
now have a major problem with the International Criminal Court. The 
Clinton administration was party to spawning this. Now it has become a 
major problem, because it is going to be an agency of the General 
Assembly in which we have no veto, rather than the Security Council 
where we do have a veto. As a matter of fact, the United Nations voted 
against us 120 to 7 relative to the International Criminal Court. And 
we want to give them $475? I think not.

                              {time}  2310

  In summary, we need to strike this language because we have already 
paid the dues, whatever they are, several times over with legitimate 
U.N. peacekeeping activities. Witness the four government reports. 
Secondly, the U.N. is not reforming, as they promised they would. And, 
thirdly, we have a major problem with the international criminal court.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Bartlett) for yielding me this time.
  As we all know, the U.S. easily pays the lion's share of the burden 
for keeping the U.N. in operation. Each year the U.S. spends 
approximately $1 billion for the U.N.'s regular budget, peacekeeping 
operations, and various other U.N. programs. In addition, in 1995, the 
U.S. spent approximately $1 billion for U.N. peacekeeping operations 
above and beyond our assessed dues.
  In fact, a recent GAO report documents that from 1992 to 1995 the 
U.S. supported the U.N. in its peacekeeping ventures to the tune of 
$6.6 billion, but only $1.8 billion of this was counted toward our 
assessed dues to the U.N. Of the remaining $4.8 billion, only $79 
million has been reimbursed to the United States. If we deduct the $1.3 
billion the U.N. claims we owe them from the $4.8 billion of 
nonreimbursed U.S. expenditures, the result is $3.5 billion that the 
U.N. still must pay or credit to the United States.
  Perhaps the U.N. bureaucrats think this was a gift from American 
taxpayers, but it certainly was not. That is why 31 Members of 
Congress, myself included, sent a letter to President Clinton following 
his State of the Union address in February 1997. This letter voiced our 
disagreement with the President's statement that we owe money to the 
U.N.
  Currently, we pay at least 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget 
through assessed dues. This is 2 to 3 percent below what the U.N. 
believes we should pay and 5 percent below what this administration 
wants us to pay.
  Also, for peacekeeping operations, we contribute over 30 percent of 
the U.N.'s budget. On top of these assessed dues, the U.S. appropriates 
roughly $300 million as voluntary contributions for various U.N. 
programs, including $30 million in fiscal year 1998 for the U.N. 
population program, which we all know is a front for funding overseas 
abortions.
  This Congress and the President need to realize we cannot provide any 
so-called back payments to the U.N. until the U.S. is properly 
reimbursed or credited for our contributions to the various 
peacekeeping ventures and until certain U.N. reforms have been 
implemented.
  Let me just remind the House that, first, we do not owe the $1.3 
billion in arrears, as the U.N. claims. Second, we do not owe $921 
million in arrears, as the administration's request for fiscal year 
1998 and 1999. And, thirdly, we do not owe $819 million in U.N. back 
dues, as H.R. 1757 authorizes for fiscal year 1998 and 2000.
  Accordingly, we should not fund $475 in so-called unpaid arrears for 
fiscal year 1999, as proposed in this State Department appropriations 
bill. Equally important, we do not need to throw any extra chunk of the 
American taxpayers' hard earned money at an institution that, one, 
often contradicts U.S. national interest, fails to acknowledge the 
extent and significance of U.S. contributions, and fails to implement 
many of the badly needed U.N. reforms necessary to help the U.N.
  Support the Bartlett amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the Members know that I am no patsy for the 
United Nations. I believe the United Nations is a bloated organization, 
in need of terminating obsolete and duplicative functions, ridding 
itself of unneeded positions and unproductive employees, trimming its 
budget, reforming its procurement practices, crediting the United 
States for off-budget contributions, decreasing the lopsided amount of 
U.S. contributions, and burying any ambitions to be some kind of world 
government.
  I have tried to use every piece of leverage at my disposal for years 
in this subcommittee, including conditioning payment of our assessment 
to insist on overall budget reductions, personnel reductions and the 
creation of an Inspector General to become an independent watchdog to 
sniff out waste, fraud and abuse. And that is exactly what the funding 
of arrearages in this bill, again, is meant to do. Not one penny of the 
$475 million for payment of arrearages in this bill will be spent, not 
one penny, unless and not until a series of conditions is met by the 
United Nations.
  The first condition is: The State Department authorization bill by 
this Congress must be passed and signed into law. The United Nations' 
reforms that are contained in that regulation include: Reducing the 
U.S. assessment rate, reducing the number of personnel, reimbursement 
for U.S. goods and services, writing off arrears that the U.S. 
disavows, sunsetting U.N. programs, merit-based employment, a code of 
conduct, and a cap on payment to international organizations.
  That is just the first condition, Mr. Chairman.
  Condition two: The United Nations must actually implement those 
reforms. Once an authorization bill gets signed into law, still not a 
penny goes out. The U.N. has to implement these reforms. First, the 
assessment rate has to be reduced, sunsetting of U.N. programs has to 
be agreed to, and so on.
  Condition three: The U.S. assessment rate must be reduced at least to 
22 percent and 25 for peacekeeping, guaranteeing lower payments by our 
taxpayers from here on out. This $475 million is provided subject to 
authorization and subject to achievement of these reforms. It will be 
spent if and only if we get the kind of reform we want from the United 
Nations, and the money may never be spent.
  But the choice will be up to the administration and to the U.N. There 
is one and only one true constituency for reform at the U.N., and that 
is this body: The United States Congress.
  This is our best chance to change an institution that all of us 
believes desperately needs changing. This is no time to refrain from 
being bold. We must stick to our guns, and for that reason support this 
bill and reject the Bartlett amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished chairman 
of the committee for yielding me this time and appreciate his very 
strong statement in opposition to this amendment. He is in a good 
position to make a strong statement on this issue because he has been 
at the forefront in trying to affect reforms at the United Nations, and 
has been very effective in doing so. I am pleased to have supported, as 
has been the minority on our committee has been pleased likewise to 
support him.
  This is a very ill-advised amendment for two immediate reasons. First 
of all,

[[Page H7172]]

we owe the money. We owe the United Nations money. Now, it is over a 
billion dollars, or less than a billion dollars, depending on how we 
count it. But we certainly owe the money, and we owe them as much money 
as is appropriated in this bill, $475 million, which is the subject of 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Unless we want to be total pikers in the world community, we need to 
pay this money. Now, that is just what it boils down to. Are we going 
to be responsible partners in this international organization and pay 
the money, stand up, meet our obligations; or are we going to be pikers 
and not pay it; welch on our debts? That is what this amendment asks us 
to do.
  Now, it is perfectly appropriate for the Congress of the United 
States, that holds the pursestrings, to say, yes, we owe this money; 
yes, we want to participate in this international organization, but 
international organization, United Nations, we have concerns about the 
way you operate and we think, in many ways, you are irresponsible and 
you need to reform.

                              {time}  2320

  So here is what you have to do in order to receive money from us. 
That is using our leverage, exactly the power of the purse that the 
United States Congress has, to effect reforms in this case or to effect 
policy in this country and as we relate to the world through this 
organization. That is very appropriate, and that is what we are doing 
here.
  We have a bipartisan agreement which the Secretary of State, the 
United Nations ambassador, have worked extremely hard on during the 
last 2, 3 and 4 years. They have worked with Members of Congress, both 
on the House and the Senate side, both Democrats and Republicans, to 
effect this agreement. The linchpin is the leverage we have with 
withholding funding and doling it out in response to the United Nations 
being responsive for our demands for reforms. That is all responsible.
  What is not responsible is for us to say we are just not going to pay 
it. The gentleman argues, as I understand his argument, that our 
contribution to peacekeeping efforts or to our military operations 
ought to offset this debt. Well, that is not a part of this deal. 
Countries that participate in this way militarily, in the ways we have, 
do not offset those military contributions against these peacekeeping 
and other U.N. funding programs.
  So I simply say, this is the second year, and I think the gentleman 
was unsuccessful last year and I hope he is unsuccessful this year, it 
is just a totally irresponsible amendment to come here and suggest we 
should withdraw.
  We do not have a authorization so this is subject to an 
authorization. This funding is subject to an authorization.
  We are effecting reforms at the United Nations, which is what we 
ought to be doing with our money, leveraging our payment based upon 
their performance for reforms. Then we have achieved assessment rate 
reductions and this money is also contingent upon their accepting that.
  I do not know how much more you can ask but what you cannot ask is 
for the United States of America to be pikers on this debt and the 
Members of the United States Congress to be accomplices in reneging on 
the obligation.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, my intentions were good but I just did 
not have enough time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, Congress 
passed the State Department authorization bill which authorized $819 
million to pay the United Nations back dues over the next two years. 
The Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill 
includes $475 million of the $1.3 billion owed to the U.N. It is 
essential that this funding not be decreased or stricken.
  Because of its large debt to the United Nations, the United States 
actually risks automatically losing its vote in the United Nations 
General Assembly early next year. We can not afford to lose our voting 
rights.
  The United States has been trying to reduce its United Nations budget 
share, but negotiations ended last year when other members would not 
agree to pay more until the United States paid at least its current 
obligated share. Who can blame them.
  Seven former Secretaries of State wrote Congress, telling Members 
that ``without a U.S. commitment to pay arrears . . . U.S. efforts to 
consolidate and advance U.N. reforms and reduce U.S. assessments are 
not going to succeed.'' The continued failure of the United States to 
honor these obligations threatens the financial and political viability 
of the United Nations.


                            opponents argue

  The United Nations doesn't reimburse countries for their 
participation in U.N.-run peace operations. NOT True--The United 
Nations pays countries $998 per soldier per month in U.N. peace 
operations. The U.N. does not reimburse countries for operations which 
they conduct on their own, or outside the U.N. system.
  The United Nations owes the U.S. $109 million for peacekeeping. 
True--The U.N. recognizes this fact, but has no money to pay the U.S. 
or others of the 70-plus countries that contribute to U.N. 
peacekeeping. Countries have failed to pay over $1 billion in 
peacekeeping assessments; currently the U.S. owes about $900 million in 
peacekeeping arrears.
  The United States is relinquishing command of American soldiers. Not 
True--Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) described the overall 
Clinton policy for using U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations. It is 
classified, but according to the declassified summary, participation in 
peacekeeping operations is contingent upon several factors, including 
command and control of U.S. troops by American commanders.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will be 
postponed.


          Amendment no. 32 Offered by Ms. Millender-Mc Donald

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

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 101, line 21 insert ``(increased by $250,000 to be 
     used for the National Women's Business Council as authorized 
     by section 409 of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 
     (15 U.S.C. 631 note)'' after the dollar amount.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), and a Member 
opposed will each control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes 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 yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Millender-McDonald/Bartlett/Forbes amendment 
increases funding for the National Women's Business Council to the full 
amount that was authorized by Congress last year. I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), for their support of women 
business owners and this amendment. I appreciate having their 
bipartisan support.
  As a member the Committee on Small Business and co-chair of the 
Women's Business Legislative Team, I was actively involved in 
reauthorizing the Small Business Administration, including the Women's 
Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council under its 
jurisdiction.
  The Small Business Programs Reauthorization and Amendments Act was 
unanimously passed by the Committee on Small Business and passed by the 
House on the Suspension Calendar by a vote of 397 to 17. Clearly, the 
programs authorized through this legislation, such as the National 
Women's Business Council, have strong bipartisan support. I am here 
today to ensure that this bipartisan authorization is matched with full 
appropriation.

[[Page H7173]]

  The Senate passed the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
appropriations bill with the full appropriation and so should the 
House. This increase for the Women's Business Council is small and 
reasonable and the Congressional Budget Office has assured me that it 
does not increase the budget outlays and it does not need any offset.
  The National Women's Business Council is a bipartisan advisory panel 
created in 1988 by Congress to provide advice and counsel to the 
President, Congress and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business 
Enterprise.
  As many of my colleagues who are actively involved with women 
business owners in their districts know, the council has played an 
integral role in helping us meet the needs of women-owned businesses 
today. The council serves as a powerful voice for more than 8 million 
women-owned businesses in the country that are providing jobs for 15.5 
million people and generating nearly $1.4 trillion in sales.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? Because I would like the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to speak on the issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Millender-McDonald amendment, and I compliment her for her efforts in 
support of the National Women's Business Council.
  Her increase is especially responsible because it raises the amount 
of money appropriated to this organization to the authorized and to 
that amount requested by the administration, and she did it in a way 
that did not require an offset. And I compliment her for her amendment 
and her support of the council and rise in strong support of her 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to examine the amendment and in 
fact have worked with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) on the amendment. We think it is a good amendment, and we 
compliment her, and we accept the amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, small businesses have been at the very 
core of our commercial activities since our Nation's beginnings. In the 
last decade large numbers of women had the opportunity to become small 
business owners. However, as of about 1996, women owned a little less 
than 40 percent of all businesses.
  In my own state of North Carolina, women own only 34 percent of the 
state's firms. The wonderful news is that, during this period, the 
number of North Carolina's women-owned businesses grew by 94 percent, 
employment grew by 140 percent, and sales rose 200 percent.
  As a Congress, we must do all that we can to help women continue to 
cultivate these opportunities. The National Women's Business Council 
(NWBC) is an organization vital to this goal.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to support the Millender-McDonald/
Bartlett/Forbes Amendment of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
Bill to fully fund the Council for the $600,000 authorized by the 
Congress and targeted for appropriations by the Senate.
  We encourage small business development through our commitment and 
investment. I believe strongly that we must continue to enable our 
communities' business people. That is why, today, I support the 
Millender-McDonald amendment on behalf of the National Women's Business 
Council and on behalf of current and prospective women business owners 
across the United States and in my own state of North Carolina.
  NWBC is a bipartisan and independent source of advice to the 
President, the Congress, and the private sector's Interagency Committee 
on Women's Business Enterprise. Through its 15-member Board of 
prominent women and leaders in the business community, NWBC represents 
the voice of this nation's more than 8 million women-owned businesses.
  The Council's critical mission also includes completing two research 
studies requested by the Congress: one on why women-owned businesses 
are awarded only 2 percent of federal contracts, and the other, on why 
women have accessed only 2 percent of all venture capital.
  Most women entrepreneurs just don't know about the many local, state, 
and federal-level resources available to them. Women need to access 
capital, information, and markets in order to start and grow successful 
businesses. As policymakers, we have a responsibility to assist women 
access those services and build a public policy infrastructure that 
supports them. The National Women's Business Council is available to 
help us make this happen.
  This summer I hosted a Roundtable discussion to connect women in the 
First District of North Carolina interested in starting or growing 
their businesses with some of the potential local and national 
resources available to assist them. We employed the latest 
technological advances. The first to use the North Carolina Information 
Highway System to its fullest capacity, we simultaneously linked and 
connected women at five different sites for satellite-fed and computer-
delivered interactive discussions.
  The Roundtable not only was a successful and energizing beginning, it 
marked the first meeting hosted by a member of Congress where the local 
input will feed directly into a national economic forum on women's 
entrepreneurship.
  The Council will host a national-level ``Summit '98'' where women 
entrepreneurs and experts from around the country will develop action 
plans about how to address the four critical needs of women 
entrepreneurs, to build the 21st century economy, and grow women-owned 
businesses.
  It is important to assist women business owners find ways to develop 
their businesses so that if they choose to, they can increase the 
scope, the employment rate, and profitability. This is the essence of 
our entrepreneual system.
  I urge support for the Millender-McDonald/Bartlett/Forbes Amendment 
on behalf of the National Women's Business Council.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important 
amendment to increase funding for the National Women's Business 
Council.
  Last year, the National Women's Business Council was unanimously 
passed by the Small Business Committee and went on to pass the House by 
an overwhelming vote of 397 to 17. The Senate has already provided full 
funding for the Council in their CJS Appropriations bill. I urge the 
House to vote for this amendment and continue to support National 
Women's Business Council.
  The National Women's Business Council is a bi-partisan Federal 
government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of 
advice and council to the President and Congress. The Council consists 
of 15 prominent women business owners and leaders of Women's business 
organizations. It is essentially the voice of approximately 8 million 
women-owned businesses in the country.
  The Council was recently instructed by Congress to complete a study 
on women's business participation in the federal government. The main 
goals are to find out why women-owned businesses continue to receive so 
few federal contracts, and do a study on women's access to capital.
  Women-owned businesses play an increasingly more important role in 
our economy. Between 1987 and 1996 the number of firms owned by women 
grew by 78%, and the number of minority women-owned firms grew 206%. 
Current estimates are that the nearly eight million women-owned 
businesses in this country account for nearly $1.4 trillion in sales. 
And yet, women-owned businesses continue to receive just 2% of federal 
contracts, and just 2% of all venture capital.
  In 1996, women-owned firms accounted for 40% of all businesses in 
Colorado, provided employment for 33% of Colorado's workers, and 
generated 19% of the state's business sales. During the entire 1987-
1996 period, the National Foundation for Women Business owners 
estimates that the number of women-owned firms in Colorado has 
increased by 65%, that employment has grown by 235% and sales have 
risen 276%.
  These astounding statistics underscore the importance of the studies 
conducted by the National Women's Business Council. The Council needs 
its full appropriation to be able to carry out these studies which are 
clearly of great importance to small businesswomen in my state and 
throughout this country.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for small business in this country and 
pass 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 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Talent

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Talent:

[[Page H7174]]

       Page 102, line 15 insert ``(increased by $7,090,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 103, line 7 insert ``(decreased by $7,090,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and a Member opposed to the 
amendment each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will add slightly over $7 million to the 
Business Loan Program Account for the Small Business Administration. 
The purpose is to add that funding for the purpose of the Small 
Business Investment Program.
  H.R. 4276 currently appropriates $13.1 million for the SBIC program, 
which is well below fiscal 1998. This amendment will raise funding to 
an amount equal to this year's level. That is necessary to create a 
level kind of funding stream. We anticipate, Mr. Chairman, increased 
demand for the program, and this amount guarantees that sufficient 
funding will be available for the SBIC program.
  Mr. Chairman, the SBIC program is a Small Businesses Venture Capital 
program, really the only one that we have. It provides venture capital 
lenders with leverage funds for the purpose of equity and long-term 
investment in small business.
  The participants in the SBIC program look to the Congress for clear 
signals of our support and consequently our commitment to funding 
venture capital for small businesses. By adding these funds, we will 
maintain this program at a level equal to that of previous years and 
send a clear message of our support for this program.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee chairman, 
has spoken with me about the program and understands our concern about 
possible serious negative impact on private capital commitments to the 
program. He has expressed his support for the program and my amendment 
and I want to thank him for his support.
  I want to mention also at this point, before yielding to the 
chairman, that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, also supports the 
amendment. And I want to thank her for her help and her consistent aid 
on behalf of small business.
  I will add also that the amendment is supported by the Small Business 
Legislative Council, an organization representing over 80 small 
business groups.
  I ask my colleagues for their support for this amendment, as well.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman of 
the SBA authorizing committee, is a talented chairman and has this very 
strongly on his mind, and he has conferred with me at great length and 
numerous times on the necessity of doing what his amendment achieves. 
He has convinced me of the need for that. And as chairman of the 
subcommittee, I am in agreement with the amendment and would urge 
Members to support it.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
sentiments of the gentleman and the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

                              {time}  2330

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment of gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Mr. Talent's 
amendment to increase funding for the Small Business Investment Company 
Program. I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Small 
Business Committee for bringing this important issue to the floor. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment which provides critical 
funding for our nation's small business community.
  There is no question that the value of Small Business Investment 
Companies has been felt across this nation. SBICs have invested nearly 
$15 billion in long-term debt and equity capital to over 90,000 small 
businesses. Over the years, SBICs have given companies like Intel 
Corporation, Federal Express and America Online the push they needed to 
succeed. The result has been the creation of millions of new jobs and 
billions of dollars in economic growth.
  By restoring necessary levels of funding, Mr. Talent's amendment 
ensures that future Intels and Federal Expresses will have a fighting 
chance. Cutting funding for this program is short-sighted. Past 
experience has shown that failure to adequately fund SBICs has had a 
detrimental effect on our nation's small businesses. In FY 95 and FY 96 
when Congress failed to show strong support for the SBIC program, 
private investors left. This caused investments in new SBICs to fall by 
60 percent from FY 94 to FY 95. Investment fell by another 32 percent 
from FY 95 to FY 96. The reason for the drop in resources was clear--
scarcity in funding and uncertainty regarding future Congressional 
intent caused private investors to put their money in other investment 
opportunities.
  Fortunately, in recent years, this trend has been reversed. 
Congressional support for SBICs has dramatically improved the outlook 
for small business. Private capital invested in new SBICs has jumped 
118 percent. Additionally, the SBIC program has been able to expand 
into new areas. This year we have witnessed the creation of two women 
owned SBIC's, and shortly we'll see the establishment of the first 
Hispanic owned SBIC. This is building on an important trend. The SBIC 
program is increasingly becoming a vehicle to assist historically 
under-served markets, namely, women, minorities and inner-cities. If 
this body fails to restore funding to the SBIC program, we risk losing 
many of these groups and blocking efforts to serve the small 
entrepreneur.
  My colleagues, the benefits that SBICs provide are quite clear. Last 
year alone, SBIC's invested over $2.4 billion in more than 2,500 
entrepreneurs allowing them--regardless of their chosen business form--
to benefit from SBIC financing. Adoption of the Talent amendment will 
enable us to continue to build even further, allowing us to create more 
jobs and provide even greater economic opportunity to our nation's 
small entrepreneurs. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentlewoman 
from New York and also of course the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee. I would ask my colleagues 
for their support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
  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 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
Fiscal Year 1999, includes funding for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  Last year the Science Committee and the full House passed H.R. 1274, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 
1997. H.R. 1274 includes authorizations of $621 million for NIST and $7 
million for the Technology Administration (TA) for FY 1999. H.R. 4276 
largely follows those authorizations by funding NIST at $624 million, 
and TA at $7 million for FY 1999.
  As did the authorization, this bill gives priority to NIST's core 
laboratory functions, including a $4 million increase over the FY 1998 
appropriated level for the Scientific and Technical Research and 
Services (STRS) account. STRS funds NIST's laboratories and the 
Baldrige Quality Awards. While the increase is less than the 
authorization, the increase is a recognition that running NIST's 
laboratory programs is the agency's most important function.
  By contrast, H.R. 4276 includes a $12 million decrease in funding for 
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), reducing the program to $180 
million from the FY 1998 funding level of $192 million. While H.R. 1274 
phased-down ATP funding from the $225 million appropriation in FY 1997 
to $150 million in FY 1999, the trajectory of ATP's funding in H.R. 
4276, if not the speed of its decline, is in keeping with the 
authorization.
  With respect to the Technology Administration, H.R. 4276 includes 
funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive

[[Page H7175]]

Technology (EPSCoT) despite the fact that the program was specifically 
not authorized by H.R. 1274. As expressed in the Science Committee's 
report accompanying H.R. 1274, I continue to have concerns that once 
EPSCoT is established, it will grow substantially beyond the $2.1 
million contained in H.R. 4276. The program, which was initiated last 
year and has done little with its $1.6 million FY 1998 appropriation, 
is now slated to receive a 31% increase. Even with the increased 
funding, it seems unlikely EPSCoT will be able to help the 18 states it 
is designed to assist. I hope that EPSCoT is not allowed to grow into 
another very expensive Administration technology initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276 also includes funding for the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  Without the benefit of the increased revenues from a non-existent 
tobacco settlement, and notwithstanding the very tight budget caps, 
Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee have managed to 
increase funding for high-priority programs, most importantly local 
warnings and forecasts within the National Weather Service.
  This was made possible in part after an agreement was reached by the 
Appropriations Committee, the Science Committee and Secretary Daley to 
maintain the $550 million budget cap on the Advanced Weather 
Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) weather modernization program.
  I am also pleased that report language in the bill echoes the Science 
Committee's concern over adequate weather radar coverage for northwest 
Pennsylvania. I hope during the new fiscal year that NOAA will see the 
light and place a National Environmental Satellite, Data and 
Information Service (NEXRAD) system in this area that is so obviously 
necessary.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Talent) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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. 
4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________