[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 109 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7262-H7287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 508 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4276.

                              {time}  2028


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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, with 
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) had been postponed and the bill 
was open for amendment from page 115, line 23, through page 124, line 
2.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendments shall be 
in order except for the amendments previously specified in that order, 
which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment or 
to a demand for a division of the question, and shall be debatable for 
the time specified, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and a 
Member opposed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 11 by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson); and 
the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82, 
noes 345, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                                AYES--82

     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Canady
     Capps
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Etheridge
     Goode
     Granger
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Jones
     Kennelly
     Kind (WI)
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     McCollum
     Meehan
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Smith (MI)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Sununu
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf

                               NOES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford

[[Page H7263]]


     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Paxon
     Yates

                              {time} 2048

  Messrs. GANSKE, SPENCE, CRANE and SCHUMER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JOHN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as an above recorded.


            Rescinding Voice Vote on Kolbe Amendment No. 19

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote 
on amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
be rescinded, and I demand a recorded vote on that amendment to be 
taken immediately following the vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, a recorded vote on amendment No. 19 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) will occur 
immediately after the recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 252, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 398]

                               AYES--176

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barr
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Moakley
     Yates

                              {time}  2057

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered By Mr. Kolbe

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee, the pending 
business is the recorded vote ordered on the Amendment No. 19 offered 
by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417, 
noes 2, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 399]

                               AYES--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H7264]]


     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Carson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clay
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Hinojosa
     Hutchinson
     Lampson
     Moakley
     Reyes
     Weldon (PA)
     Yates

                              {time}  2104

  Ms. McKINNEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I missed the vote on rollcall 
No. 399. I strongly support the Kolbe amendment, and had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the purpose of informing Members 
of the schedule for the evening. We propose to proceed with the 
continuation and conclusion of the bill. There will likely be at least 
two more recorded votes, plus final passage; there could be three. We 
hope to speed the process to where we will get the Members out for a 
reasonably early evening, not too late a meeting. So we would say to 
the Members that we propose to roll these votes until final passage, so 
that hopefully they will come to the floor one more time for a couple 
of amendment votes, or perhaps three, then final passage, and hopefully 
be concluded.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to 
discuss with the chairman the importance of funds for the National 
Marine Fisheries Service's Endangered Species Recovery Plan in this 
year's budget. I know the chairman is aware of the tremendous salmon 
problem facing the West Coast, including the proposed endangered 
species listing of West Coast salmon.
  It is my understanding that the administration requested an 
additional $7.3 million over last year's request specifically to 
address these listings on the West Coast by providing funds for 
planning and implementation of necessary protective actions for newly 
listed species of salmon.
  Is it correct that the committee was unable to provide the requested 
increases?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
is correct. I certainly appreciate the significance of salmon problems 
which exist on the West Coast. In fact, because of these problems, 
funding for endangered species programs has been increased by almost 
200 percent over the last 3 years.
  Unfortunately, the administration's fiscal 1999 budget proposed to 
pay for additional increases in fisheries programs through 
controversial new fisheries fees which the Congress already has 
rejected. Given this problem, as well as the funding constraints faced 
by the committee, we did the best we could within the funds available.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am 
sure I do not need to tell the chairman how vital these salmon stocks 
are to the States of Washington, Oregon and California. Currently we 
are working together on a recovery strategy, but we desperately need 
the Federal assistance.
  I can assure the gentleman that all three of our States will make the 
necessary sacrifices as well by matching any Federal funds. I 
respectfully ask the chairman if he will pledge to work with me and the 
other Members from my region to address the needs of our region as the 
bill moves to conference?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, knowing how 
important this matter is to the gentleman and others, I would be happy 
to continue to work with him and the other West Coast Members as the 
bill moves through the process.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about two programs that are 
not funded in this bill but are included in the Senate version of the 
bill. Last year my amendment to the Small Business Reauthorization Act 
was adopted, authorizing $2 million for technical assistance to help 
small R&D businesses compete for SBIR and STTR awards. Eligible States 
could receive $100,000, with a $50,000 State match to assist small 
businesses in applying for these awards and establishing performance 
goals.

[[Page H7265]]

  As this bill moves towards conference, I request that the chairman 
consider providing $2 million for technical assistance to the 23 States 
that receive the fewest small business innovation research grants.
  Secondly, I would like to bring to the Chairman's attention the Mike 
Mansfield Fellowship Program. This program was created by Congress in 
1994 to honor the distinguished former Senator and Majority Leader from 
Montana, Mike Mansfield, who also served for 12 years as our Ambassador 
to Japan. The program builds a core of U.S. officials with proficiency 
in the Japanese language, a network of contacts inside the government 
of Japan, and an in-depth knowledge of Japan's policy-making process.
  As the bill goes forward to conference, I ask that the chairman 
include the Mansfield program among the exchange programs supported by 
the conferees.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for bringing these very important matters to our attention. I would be 
happy to work with the gentleman and other interested Members to try to 
address their concerns as we move into the conference with the Senate 
on this bill.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
these programs are of particular importance to me, and I am pleased the 
Chairman and the Committee will work to ensure that the funds are 
provided for both of these. I appreciate the Chairman's and the 
Committee's indulgence.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss NOAA's South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Because of NOAA's scientific 
management capabilities, the agency plays a critical role in this 
massive restoration effort. Ten Members of the Florida delegation wrote 
to the committee on May 11 supporting NOAA's programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address two points. First, it is my 
understanding that the House will provide $2.6 million for this 
initiative and $1.3 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service to 
continue its restoration efforts. Second, I would ask the chairman if 
he would consider in conference the request of the National Ocean 
Service for a coral reef monitoring program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) would yield, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) is 
correct that the bill includes no less than $2.6 million in NOAA for 
this initiative, including $1.3 under the National Marine Fisheries 
Service to continue ongoing activities.
  In addition, the bill provides a $5 million increase for NMFS for 
high-priority programs. It is the committee's intention that NMFS 
consider using a portion of this increase to augment its activities in 
this area.
  Further, I will be happy to look at the issue regarding additional 
efforts for this initiative as we move to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a 
colloquy with the subcommittee chairman regarding a program that is 
important to the coastal communities in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, less than three weeks ago the world witnessed one of 
the most devastating natural disasters in history. A giant wave known 
as a tsunami struck the shore of northwestern New Guinea, killing over 
2,000 people and injuring thousands more. Some of us in this body may 
recall the tsunami that struck Alaska, California, Oregon and Hawaii in 
1964, that killed over 120 Americans. Tsunamis are a real and extremely 
dangerous threat to life in the United States, as well as other 
countries.
  In light of the recent New Guinea incident, it is essential that our 
Nation evaluate its preparedness for a similar event. Over the last 2 
years, NOAA has been developing a plan to mitigate the effects of such 
an event. I look forward to working with the chairman to see that the 
Federal Government is prepared for such an event.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for 
this very serious problem, and will be pleased to work with her as we 
move through the process to ensure that the Federal government is 
taking the necessary steps to be prepared for such a disaster.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the chairman for the willingness to 
study this problem, and am anxious to work with him in conference on 
this issue.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) 
and I were going to enter an amendment today to create an incentive 
program for States to implement a 24-hour holding period for a 
psychological evaluation for juveniles who bring firearms to school.
  That amendment would have been subject to a point of order and we 
will not offer it, but I wonder if the chairman would be willing to 
engage in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia would 
yield, I would tell the gentleman, yes, of course I would.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate adopted an 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill which is 
identical to the amendment the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) 
and I had planned to offer.
  We intended to introduce that amendment as a stand-alone bill before 
we adjourn this week. However, in light of the recent outbreak of 
school shootings this year, I ask for the chairman's support as we work 
to make this bill law, and create new ways to prevent youth violence in 
our schools and give our communities the tools they need in that 
effort.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman 
and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) on this legislation over 
the coming months.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman for that.
  Mr. Chairman, this country has been rocked by the outbreak of violent 
shootings and the senseless loss of life in our schools this past year. 
My hometown of Springfield, OR is still struggling with the pain and 
devastation of one of those shootings. Like my friends and neighbors, 
I've looked for answers and solutions to these tragic events. It's 
clear there's no single, or simple, solutions to prevent these acts 
from re-occurring when school starts in the fall. But the circumstances 
around the Springfield incident has focused attention on a shortcoming 
in current law.
  When a student takes a gun to school, it should set-off alarm bells. 
Someone should take a look at that student's life and see what would be 
causing that type of behavior, but instead, police officers are asked 
to make a judgment call about the youth's state of mind and determine 
whether, or not, they pose a threat to themselves or the community. But 
may law enforcement officials don't want that discretion. Many law 
enforcement officials feel these students should be detained and 
evaluated by a professional before being released back into the 
community.
  Bobby Moody, President of the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police wrote, ``As recent events have shown, a mechanism must be 
developed which temporarily pulls children found with guns out of the 
school system so that a thorough psychological examination can be 
performed to determine the danger such a child presents to others.''
  Paul Barnett, President of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association 
wrote, ``Oregon's recent tragedy in Springfield has been a devastating 
and unnecessary reminder of the urgent need for new legislation to 
address the obvious inadequacies of our current policy regarding school 
violence. Over 100 Oregon students were caught bringing guns to school 
last year, each representing the potential for yet another tragedy. 
Oregon State Sheriff's Association urges the U.S. Congress to act 
quickly to deliver this important tool to communities and schools 
throughout the nation by providing incentives to states willing to 
implement the provisions of the 72 hour hold legislation.''
  And Springfield Mayor Bill Morrisette wrote, ``I recently attended a 
debriefing conference in Memphis, TN convened by Mayor Jimmy Foster of 
Pearl, MS and attended by representatives of Paduca, KY, Jonesboro and 
Stgamps, AK, Edinboro, PA and Keokuk, IA. It was the consensus that the 
72-hour mandatory holding

[[Page H7266]]

period for guns on school campuses was a necessary first step. If we 
don't even allow joking about having a weapon in an airport, why should 
we give a kid a slap on the wrist for bringing a gun to school.''
  Guns in schools is too common. A study of the Department of Education 
on implementation of the Gun-Free-Schools Act found that more than 
6,000 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school in the 
1996-97 school year. Thirty-four percent of those students were in 
junior high school, and nine percent were in elementary school. 
Communities want and need more tools and resources to deal with these 
situations.
  This amendment is not a panacea, and we can't second guess what would 
have happened if this law had been in effect and Kip Kinkle had been 
detained and evaluated by a judge rather than released into the 
community. But, this law would give local law enforcement officials one 
more tool to use to reduce the incidence of gun violence in our 
schools.
  Mr. ROGERS. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into a colloquy with 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
  First of all, I want to commend the Chairman. I also want to commend 
the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia, and other members 
of the Subcommittee for their commitment to address the methamphetamine 
problem in the United States, and specifically to provide $50 million 
of unused funds to the methamphetamine program within the community-
oriented policing program.
  Tragically, Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years, my home 
State of Missouri has ranked among the top three methamphetamine-
producing States in the Nation. We have seen in our State 
investigations seizures double in recent years. I can tell the 
gentleman that law enforcement in Missouri is waging a war against 
methamphetamine production, and they closed over 310 labs last year. 
Unfortunately, a lot of work yet remains to be done.
  Demonstrating the problems methamphetamine is causing in Missouri, I 
got a letter from a constituent of mine, Linwood Willis Carman, Jr., 
who happens to work for the Wellsville Police Department in Montgomery 
County in suburban St. Louis. He asked for my help so his police 
department can continue to employ officers to combat meth.
  He says: ``Sir, I ask you for a helping hand to help me do what I 
love to do and was trained to do. I want to stop the meth makers of 
Missouri, and help the countless that fall victim to the temptation. I 
don't want to see Missouri ranked number one in the meth business 
anymore.''
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the Senate provided $15.5 million for the 
methamphetamine program, well below the House level of $50 million. As 
we move to conference with the Senate, I ask for the Chairman's support 
in retaining the House funding level for this vital program in 
directing necessary funds to combat the methamphetamine problem in 
Missouri, so we can give local law enforcement officials the tools 
necessary to wage a winning battle over this highly addictive and 
destructive drug.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
for his input on this tragic and important matter. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman and our Senate counterparts to move towards 
the House position certainly on the COPS methamphetamine funding.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Dickey).
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to show my concern about a provision 
in the chairman's bill that allows an increase of $18.5 million for the 
EEOC. I want to do so by drawing attention to a circumstance in Miami, 
Florida, that I think is worthy of the gentleman's attention and the 
attention of my colleagues. It has to do with Joe's Stone Crab in Miami 
Beach.
  That is a well-known, world-renowned restaurant. It has been owned 
for 85 years by the same Jewish family. It has had diversity practices 
in its hiring practices long before it was required by law. It has been 
targeted and victimized by the EEOC, not because there are too few 
female employees. The owner is a female, and 22 percent of the 
employees are female. The heads of the departments of the restaurant, 
Mr. Chairman, are females, but there are too few female servers, 
according to the EEOC.
  This is in contrast to what is happening with Hooters. Hooters has 
only female servers. They are a chain. The EEOC has targeted just one 
restaurant.
  The reign of terror of the EEOC against Joe's Stone Crab began on 
April 27, 1992. The charge was a failure to actively recruit female 
servers. This was done without a female filing a complaint, and it was 
done without complying with the law that 300 days prior to such a 
ruling, that there had to be a complaint filed. There was no complaint 
filed. They went on their own.
  On July 3, 1997, there was a ruling by Judge Daniel T. K. Early. In 
his findings he said that Joe's Stone Crab was guilty; those were his 
words, even though it is a civil action, that they were guilty of 
hiring discrimination.
  There was no finding of any intended discrimination, Mr. Chairman. 
They took it on themselves, or the court took it on itself at that 
point to take over the hiring practices of Joe's Stone Crab, a small 
business in the United States. They required that the roll call, which 
had been word of mouth, be publicized, and required them to spend 
$125,000 in ads in the papers that they specified.
  As a result of that, a fewer percent of applicants of women were 
brought in. They hired more than the percentage of applicants that came 
in as far as females were concerned, and again, no female complained at 
any time.
  When confronted with the 22 percent female hiring that had occurred 
between 1991 and 1995, the court then just changed the statistical 
reference. They then looked at the total of the female food servers in 
Dade County, and that was 32 percent, so they just moved the target so 
they could do what they wanted to do.
  The bottom line is that this restaurant has spent 6 years, over $1 
million; they have had bad publicity; they have had lower morale; they 
have had the court come in and take over their operations and examine 
it from every angle. Then we are giving them $18.5 million in increase. 
I think they do not have enough to do. If they claim there is a 
backlog, it is because they are spending time on such frivolous 
litigation. They should be examined very carefully.
  Small businesses all across the country are being victimized by the 
EEOC. They are at the point where they cannot complain because they 
think retaliation will come. Joe's Stone Crab is a story of one owner 
saying, I will take on the government for the sake of the small 
businesses.
  My last comment, Mr. Chairman, is that I urge, as this bill moves 
forward and in the years to come, that the chairman address the issue 
of frivolous litigation and damages that the EEOC brings upon the small 
businesses in America.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up this 
problem. The increase in the bill is targeted at resolving the backlog 
of individual charges of discrimination, charges brought by actual 
individuals claiming discrimination. These are actual employers and 
employees who deserve prompt and fair resolutions. A major part of the 
increase is for alternative dispute resolution to avoid the costs and 
delays of litigation, which the gentleman has mentioned.
  At the same time, we have included report language that tells the 
EEOC to give priority to the backlog over litigation. The report 
language requires the EEOC to track and report the resources spent on 
litigation compared to resources spent on clearing the backlog, so we 
can make sure they are adhering to our guidance.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill moves to 
conference and beyond.
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7267]]

  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the 
purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman 
in a colloquy. I have offered and subsequently withdrawn an amendment 
that would have ensured that none of the funds provided in this act may 
be used by the Department of State or the United States Information 
Agency to provide any form of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcast 
Corporation.
  The Palestinian Broadcast Corporation is the official broadcasting 
arm of the Palestinian Authority. It has been receiving assistance from 
the United States while engaging in a campaign in support of violence 
and hatred against the United States and her interests. This campaign 
is fostering an atmosphere sympathetic to violence and terrorism in the 
region.
  I believe the United States should do everything possible to support 
a free and independent media, but I say to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers), this is not media, this is propaganda. I do not 
believe United States taxpayer dollars should be spent to sustain it.
  I understand the committee has included report language addressing 
this issue. In addition, I understand the Senate has passed legislative 
language similar to the committee's report language. I would hope that 
the chairman would consider this favorably when addressing the issue in 
conference.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising the 
issue. As the gentleman mentioned, we have included report language 
urging the USIA to refrain from assisting the Palestinian Broadcasting 
Corporation in any way which could further the restriction of press 
freedoms or the broadcasting of inaccurate, inflammatory messages.
  It is my understanding that the Department of State and USIA 
currently have a policy of not providing such assistance to the 
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, based on the types of behaviors 
that the gentleman has just described. I support that policy.
  As the bill moves into conference, I will be happy to work with the 
gentleman and other interested Members.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his 
assurances and assistance in this regard.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Saxton

  Mr. SAXTON. 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. Saxton:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used by the United States to 
     intervene against a claim for attachment in aid of execution, 
     or execution, of property of a foreign state upon a judgment 
     relating to a claim brought under section 1605(a)(7) of title 
     28, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and a Member opposed will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is known as the International Terrorist Must Pay 
amendment. In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This Act allowed 
victims of State-sponsored terrorism to sue foreign governments in 
Federal court for damages arising from terrorism.
  In 1995, a young New Jersey woman named Alysa Flatow was killed in 
Israel by a suicide bomber from the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist 
operation financed by and sponsored by Iran. Her family sued under the 
aforementioned statutes and proved that Iran had financed the 
activities of the Islamic Jihad, and received a judgment of $247 
million in damages.
  Needless to say, Iran did not voluntarily step forward to pay the 
judgment. As a result, the Flatows sought to locate Iranian-owned 
property in the United States. Recently they located three properties 
in Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government. They proceeded to 
go to court to have the court attach the properties for subsequent 
sale.
  The court issued the writs of attachment, and the Federal Marshals 
were ordered to serve Iran with the papers. The State Department at 
that time stepped in and raised objections to the sale, in effect 
taking the side of Iran, and asked the Justice Department to intervene 
on the side of Iran.
  The Justice Department subsequently made an appearance in the trial 
and argued that the property should not be seized, their argument being 
that it would allow the seizure of Iranian assets. Of course, if their 
argument holds, this would defeat the purpose of the bill that Members 
on both sides of the aisle voted in favor of in 1996, the Antiterrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Iran therefore would be 
allowed to continue to finance terrorist activity without a price to 
pay. This amendment finalizes the process and creates a price for 
international terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to oppose the amendment, 
but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time so we can explain why we 
are accepting it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control 
the time.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is my understanding that the committee intends to accept this 
amendment on both sides. I would simply like to say that, as some 
Members may remember, this matter was brought up before the House once 
before several weeks ago on a previous appropriation bill. It was then 
offered in a form which was technically not germane to the bill and was 
subject to a point of order.
  We felt that the Congress had not had sufficient time to examine the 
amendment and to understand its implications in terms of the 
administration's ability to negotiate and to conduct foreign policy. So 
we were concerned at that time.
  We have now learned a bit more about the status of the law. There are 
still, frankly, some questions about the advisability of going exactly 
this route, but, frankly, the State Department has not been as clear as 
we would like in laying out what other options might be available.
  So under these circumstances, I think it is advisable for the 
committee to accept the amendment with the understanding that it will 
need to be worked on in conference to make certain that it is 
consistent with U.S. national interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
Jersey. This will help American victims of terrorism collect on 
judgments they have been awarded against state sponsors of terrorism.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, the Flatow family has 
gotten a judgment against the government of Iran, which sponsors 
terrorism. It is absolutely obscene that we would be in a position of 
taking the side of Iran. Iran must understand, as an outlaw nation, 
that we will never stop in trying to combat terrorism. This is 
certainly justice for the Flatow family.
  By allowing this seizure of Iranian assets, this is something that 
teaches Iran, hits them where it hurts and let us them understand, 
again, that we will not accept state-sponsored terrorism.
  It is ludicrous that the State Department had opposed this. Iran must 
pay a price for the continuing support of terrorism. I compliment my 
friend from New Jersey.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that there are some 
questions, also, the State Department has with respect to who should be 
ahead of whom in being able to make claims against countries like Iran.

[[Page H7268]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the 
Saxton amendment.
  We clearly gave the right to victims of terrorists to sue foreign 
entities for compensation as a Congress. That is what the Congress 
passed in the law. And it is right for us to do so, to give a victim 
with a court-ordered judgment, to be allowed to enforce that judgment 
against any and all assets of a country in the United States.
  It is offensive, in my view, that any department or entity of the 
United States Government would actively seek to inhibit such a 
judgment. This amendment would allow the family of Alysa Flatow, who is 
someone who in fact died at the age of 20, a resident of the State of 
New Jersey, a young, vibrant woman who had a lifetime of opportunity 
ahead of her. Her life was cut short and her family devastated by a 
bomb which exploded on the bus she was traveling on in Gaza. She was 
absolutely innocent.
  They have a court-ordered judgment. The judge actually gave them a 
writ to go ahead against property. We should not be interfering. We 
should be standing up on behalf of the rights of United States citizens 
to be able to pursue such a judgment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who represents the Flatow family.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Alysa Flatow was a student at Brandeis 
University. She was a woman of great character, both in life and in 
death. Those who received her organs can attest to the kind of woman 
she was. Her heart was successfully transplanted to a 56-year-old man 
who had been waiting for a year. Her liver was donated to a 23-year-old 
man; her lungs, pancreas and kidneys to four different patients. Her 
corneas were donated to an eye bank.
  New Jersey will not forget Alysa Flatow or the struggle and trauma 
her family have gone through as a result of this heinous act and this 
senseless loss of a promising young woman.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had enough victims. We do not need to victimize 
the family any longer. Personally, I have had enough of negotiating 
leverage, quote unquote. It is time that we stood and stood tall for 
the Flatow family.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Saxton amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). I congratulate 
him for it.
  The life of Alysa Flatow was only 20 years long, and I am sure that 
her family feels a pain that is beyond description. But I am also sure 
that we can do something collectively here tonight that will help her 
life have even more meaning than it has already had.
  We can change the law of our country and say to terrorists, whether 
in Iran or around the world, that in this country you will be held 
accountable. If you appear before our courts and you are adjudicated 
guilty, you cannot find a loophole or an escape.
  This is a legacy that this young woman's life can leave for 
generations to come that if, God forbid, if someone else is a victim of 
terrorism, those terrorists can and will be held accountable in a U.S. 
court of law.
  I urge the amendment's adoption.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. As 
the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated, this needs to be discussed at 
some point before and during conference to be sure we are consistent on 
our policy. But we have no objection to this amendment and congratulate 
the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the chairman and the 
ranking member and all those who have spoken in favor of this amendment 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Holden

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

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Holden:
       Page 124, insert the following after line 2:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. (a) Section 118 of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Philadelphia, and 
     Schuylkill'' and inserting ``and Philadelphia''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Schuylkill,'' after 
     ``Potter,''.
       (b)(1) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall not affect any action commenced before the effective 
     date of this section and pending on such date in the United 
     States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Pennsylvania.
       (3) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall not affect the composition, or preclude the service, of 
     any grand or petit jury summoned, impaneled, or actually 
     serving on the effective date of this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) and a Member opposed each 
will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What my amendment will do is to transfer Schuylkill, Pennsylvania 
from the Eastern Judicial District of Pennsylvania to the Middle 
Judicial District of Pennsylvania.
  This provision overwhelmingly passed the House as part of H.R. 2294, 
the Federal Courts Improvement Act. However, the other body has 
notified us that they will not be able to address this piece of 
legislation in this session because of the few remaining legislative 
days on the calendar. So this is an amendment of convenience, an 
amendment of convenience to the citizens of Schuylkill County who are 
now forced to drive in excess of 2 hours to Philadelphia to serve on 
jury duty or for other court business.
  If Schuylkill County is moved to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 
the citizens of Schuylkill County will only have to travel a distance 
of about 55 or 60 miles, less than an hour on interstate 81, to the 
State Capital of Harrisburg.
  This is a noncontroversial amendment, Mr. Chairman. Both chief judges 
of the Eastern District and of the Middle District have no opposition 
to it. The Bar Association of Schuylkill County is in favor of it.
  I know from my days of serving as sheriff of Schuylkill County, the 
citizens will appreciate not having to drive all the way to 
Philadelphia to serve on jury duty.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their assistance in 
this matter, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their assistance 
in the previous legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment and 
discussed it with the gentleman in detail, and we have no objection.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

[[Page H7269]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Stearns:

                TITLE IX--INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Internet Gambling 
     Prohibition Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1081 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter immediately following the colon, by 
     designating the first 5 undesignated paragraphs as paragraphs 
     (1) through (5), respectively, and indenting each paragraph 2 
     ems to the right; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Bets or wagers.--The term `bets or wagers'--
       ``(A) means the staking or risking by any person of 
     something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, 
     sporting event of others, or of any game of chance, upon an 
     agreement or understanding that the person or another person 
     will receive something of value based on that outcome;
       ``(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to 
     win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is 
     predominantly subject to chance);
       ``(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 
     3702 of title 28, United States Code; and
       ``(D) does not include--
       ``(i) a bona fide business transaction governed by the 
     securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78c(a)(47))) for the purchase or sale at a future date of 
     securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10)));
       ``(ii) a transaction on or subject to the rules of a 
     contract market designated pursuant to section 5 of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7);
       ``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee;
       ``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance; 
     or
       ``(v) participation in a game or contest, otherwise lawful 
     under applicable Federal or State law--

       ``(I) that, by its terms or rules, is not dependent on the 
     outcome of any single sporting event, any series or sporting 
     events, any tournament, or the individual performance of 1 or 
     more athletes or teams in a single sporting event;
       ``(II) in which the outcome is determined by accumulated 
     statistical results of games or contests involving the 
     performances of amateur or professional athletes or teams; 
     and
       ``(III) in which the winner or winners may receive a prize 
     or award;

     (otherwise known as a `fantasy sport league' or a `rotisserie 
     league') if such participation is without charge to the 
     participant or any charge to a participant is limited to a 
     reasonable administrative fee.
       ``(7) Foreign jurisdiction.--The term `foreign 
     jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a foreign country or 
     political subdivision thereof.
       ``(8) Information assisting in the placing of a bet or 
     wager.--The term `information assisting in the placing of a 
     bet or wager'--
       ``(A) means information that is intended by the sender or 
     recipient to be used by a person engaged in the business of 
     betting or wagering to accept or place a bet or wager; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) information concerning parimutuel pools that is 
     exchanged between or among 1 or more racetracks or other 
     parimutuel wagering facilities licensed by the State or 
     approved by the foreign jurisdiction in which the facility is 
     located, and 1 or more parimutuel wagering facilities 
     licensed by the State or approved by the foreign jurisdiction 
     in which the facility is located, if that information is used 
     only to conduct common pool parimutuel pooling under 
     applicable law;
       ``(ii) information exchanged between or among 1 or more 
     racetracks or other parimutuel wagering facilities licensed 
     by the State or approved by the foreign jurisdiction in which 
     the facility is located, and a support service located in 
     another State or foreign jurisdiction, if the information is 
     used only for processing bets or wagers made with that 
     facility under applicable law;
       ``(iii) information exchanged between or among 1 or more 
     wagering facilities that are located within a single State 
     and are licensed and regulated by that State, and any support 
     service, wherever located, if the information is used only 
     for the pooling or processing of bets or wagers made by or 
     with the facility or facilities under applicable State law;
       ``(iv) any news reporting or analysis of wagering activity, 
     including odds, racing or event results, race and event 
     schedules, or categories of wagering; or
       ``(v) any posting or reporting of any educational 
     information on how to make a bet or wager or the nature of 
     betting or wagering.''.

     SEC. 903. PROHIBITION ON INTERNET GAMBLING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 50 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1085. Internet gambling

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Closed-loop subscriber-based service.--The term 
     `closed-loop subscriber-based service' means any information 
     service or system that uses--
       ``(A) a device or combination of devices--
       ``(i) expressly authorized and operated in accordance with 
     the laws of a State for the purposes described in subsection 
     (e); and
       ``(ii) by which a person located within a State must 
     subscribe to be authorized to place, receive, or otherwise 
     make a bet or wager, and must be physically located within 
     that State in order to be authorized to do so;
       ``(B) a customer verification system to ensure that all 
     applicable Federal and State legal and regulatory 
     requirements for lawful gambling are met; and
       ``(C) appropriate data security standards to prevent 
     unauthorized access.
       ``(2) Gambling business.--The term `gambling business' 
     means a business that is conducted at a gambling 
     establishment, or that--
       ``(A) involves--
       ``(i) the placing, receiving, or otherwise making of bets 
     or wagers; or
       ``(ii) offers to engage in placing, receiving, or otherwise 
     making bets or wagers;
       ``(B) involves 1 or more persons who conduct, finance, 
     manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such 
     business; and
       ``(C) has been or remains in substantially continuous 
     operation for a period in excess of 10 days or has a gross 
     revenue of $2,000 or more during any 24-hour period.
       ``(3) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive 
     computer service' means any information service, system, or 
     access software provider that uses a public communication 
     infrastructure or operates in interstate or foreign commerce 
     to provide or enable computer access by multiple users to a 
     computer server, including specifically a service or system 
     that provides access to the Internet.
       ``(4) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
     Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
       ``(5) Person.--The term `person' means any individual, 
     association, partnership, joint venture, corporation, State 
     or political subdivision thereof, department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, 
     or any other government, organization, or entity.
       ``(6) Private network.--The term `private network' means a 
     communications channel or channels, including voice or 
     computer data transmission facilities, that use either--
       ``(A) private dedicated lines; or
       ``(B) the public communications infrastructure, if the 
     infrastructure is secured by means of the appropriate private 
     communications technology to prevent unauthorized access.
       ``(7) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Gambling.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--Subject to subsection (e), it shall be 
     unlawful for a person knowingly to use the Internet or any 
     other interactive computer service--
       ``(A) to place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager 
     with any person; or
       ``(B) to send, receive, or invite information assisting in 
     the placing of a bet or wager with the intent to send, 
     receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a 
     bet or wager.
       ``(2) Penalties.--A person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be--
       ``(A) fined in an amount that is not more than the greater 
     of--
       ``(i) three times the greater of--

       ``(I) the total amount that the person is found to have 
     wagered through the Internet or other interactive computer 
     service; or
       ``(II) the total amount that the person is found to have 
     received as a result of such wagering; or

       ``(ii) $500;
       ``(B) imprisoned not more than 3 months; or
       ``(C) both.
       ``(c) Gambling Businesses.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--Subject to subsection (e), it shall be 
     unlawful for a person engaged in a gambling business 
     knowingly to use the Internet or any other interactive 
     computer service--
       ``(A) to place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; 
     or
       ``(B) to send, receive, or invite information assisting in 
     the placing of a bet or wager.
       ``(2) Penalties.--A person engaged in a gambling business 
     who violates paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) fined in an amount that is not more than the greater 
     of--
       ``(i) the amount that such person received in bets or 
     wagers as a result of engaging in that business in violation 
     of this subsection; or
       ``(ii) $20,000;
       ``(B) imprisoned not more than 4 years; or
       ``(C) both.
       ``(d) Permanent Injunctions.--Upon conviction of a person 
     under this section, the court may, as an additional penalty, 
     enter a permanent injunction enjoining the transmission of 
     bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of a 
     bet or wager.
       ``(e) Exceptions.--

[[Page H7270]]

       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     prohibitions in this section shall not apply to any--
       ``(A) otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, 
     received, or otherwise made wholly intrastate for a State 
     lottery or a racing or parimutuel activity, or a multi-State 
     lottery operated jointly between 2 or more States in 
     conjunction with State lotteries, (if the lottery or activity 
     is expressly authorized, and licensed or regulated, under 
     applicable Federal or State law) on--
       ``(i) an interactive computer service that uses a private 
     network, if each person placing or otherwise making that bet 
     or wager is physically located at a facility that is open to 
     the general public; or
       ``(ii) a closed-loop subscriber-based service that is 
     wholly intrastate; or
       ``(B) otherwise lawful bet or wager for class II or class 
     III gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) that is placed, received, or 
     otherwise made on a closed-loop subscriber-based service or 
     an interactive computer service that uses a private network, 
     if--
       ``(i) each person placing, receiving, or otherwise making 
     that bet or wager is physically located on Indian land; and
       ``(ii) all games that constitute class III gaming are 
     conducted in accordance with an applicable Tribal-State 
     compact entered into under section 11(d) of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701(d)) by a State in which each 
     person placing, receiving, or otherwise making that bet or 
     wager is physically located.
       ``(2) Inapplicability of exception to bets or wagers made 
     by agents or proxies.--An exception under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) of paragraph (1) shall not apply in any case in which a 
     bet or wager is placed, received, or otherwise made by the 
     use of an agent or proxy using the Internet or an interactive 
     computer service. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to prohibit the owner operator of a parimutuel 
     wagering facility that is licensed by a State from employing 
     an agent in the operation of the account wagering system 
     owned or operated by the parimutuel facility.
       ``(f) State Law.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to create immunity from criminal prosecution or 
     civil liability under the law of any State.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 50 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``1085. Internet gambling.''.

     SEC. 904. CIVIL REMEDIES.

       (a) In General.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and 
     restrain violations of section 1085 of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by section 903, by issuing appropriate 
     orders.
       (b) Proceedings.--
       (1) Institution by federal government.--The United States 
     may institute proceedings under this section. Upon 
     application of the United States, the district court may 
     enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against 
     any person to prevent a violation of section 1085 of title 
     18, United States Code, as added by section 903, if the court 
     determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, 
     that there is a substantial probability that such violation 
     has occurred or will occur.
       (2) Institution by state attorney general.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the attorney 
     general of a State (or other appropriate State official) in 
     which a violation of section 1085 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by section 903, is alleged to have occurred, 
     or may occur, after providing written notice to the United 
     States, may institute proceedings under this section. Upon 
     application of the attorney general (or other appropriate 
     State official) of the affected State, the district court may 
     enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against 
     any person to prevent a violation of section 1085 of title 
     18, United States Code, as added by section 903, if the court 
     determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, 
     that there is a substantial probability that such violation 
     has occurred or will occur.
       (B) Indian lands.--With respect to a violation of section 
     1085 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 
     903, that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, on 
     Indian lands (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the enforcement authority 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be limited to the remedies under 
     the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), 
     including any applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated 
     under section 11 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2710).
       (3) Orders and injunctions against internet service 
     providers.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), the 
     following rules shall apply in any proceeding instituted 
     under this subsection in which application is made for a 
     temporary restraining order or an injunction against an 
     interactive computer service:
       (A) Scope of relief.--
       (i) If the violation of section 1085 of title 18, United 
     States Code, originates with a customer of the interactive 
     computer service's system or network, the court may require 
     the service to terminate the specified account or accounts of 
     the customer, or of any readily identifiable successor in 
     interest, who is using such service to place, receive or 
     otherwise make a bet or wager, engage in a gambling business, 
     or to initiate a transmission that violates such section 
     1085.
       (ii) Any other relief ordered by the court shall be 
     technically feasible for the system or network in question 
     under current conditions, reasonably effective in preventing 
     a violation of section 1085, of title 18, United States Code, 
     and shall not unreasonably interfere with access to lawful 
     material at other online locations.
       (iii) No relief shall be issued under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     if the interactive computer service demonstrates, after an 
     opportunity to appear at a hearing, that such relief is not 
     economically reasonable for the system or network in question 
     under current conditions.
       (B) Considerations.--In the case of an application for 
     relief under subparagraph (A)(ii), the court shall consider, 
     in addition to all other factors that the court shall 
     consider in the exercise of its equitable discretion, 
     whether--
       (i) such relief either singularly or in combination with 
     such other injunctions issued against the same service under 
     this subsection, would seriously burden the operation of the 
     service's system network compared with other comparably 
     effective means of preventing violations of section 1085 of 
     title 18, United States Code;
       (ii) in the case of an application for a temporary 
     restraining order or an injunction to prevent a violation of 
     section 1085 of title 18, United States Code, by a gambling 
     business (as is defined in such section 1085) located outside 
     the United States, the relief is more burdensome to the 
     service than taking comparably effective steps to block 
     access to specific, identified sites used by the gambling 
     business located outside the United States; and
       (iii) in the case of an application for a temporary order 
     or an injunction to prevent a violation of section 1085 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as added by section 903, 
     relating to material or activity located within the United 
     States, whether less burdensome, but comparably effective 
     means are available to block access by a customer of the 
     service's system or network to information or activity that 
     violates such section 1085.
       (C) Findings.--In any order issued by the court under this 
     subsection, the court shall set forth the reasons for its 
     issuance, shall be specific in its terms, and shall describe 
     in reasonable detail, and not be reference to the complaint 
     or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained 
     and the general steps to be taken to comply with the order.
       (4) Expiration.--Any temporary restraining order or 
     preliminary injunction entered pursuant to this subsection 
     shall expire if, and as soon as, the United States, or the 
     attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of the 
     State, as applicable, notifies the court that issued the 
     injunction that the United States or the State, as 
     applicable, will not seek a permanent injunction.
       (c) Expedited Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to proceedings under 
     subsection (b), a district court may enter a temporary 
     restraining order against a person alleged to be in violation 
     of section 1085 of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     section 903, upon application of the United States under 
     subsection (b)(1), or the attorney general (or other 
     appropriate State official) of an affected State under 
     subsection (b)(2), without notice and the opportunity for a 
     hearing, if the United States or the State, as applicable, 
     demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the 
     transmission at issue violates section 1085 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by section 903.
       (2) Expiration.--A temporary restraining order entered 
     under this subsection shall expire on the earlier of--
       (A) the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date on which the order is entered; or
       (B) the date on which a preliminary injunction is granted 
     or denied.
       (3) Hearings.--A hearing requested concerning an order 
     entered under this subsection shall be held at the earliest 
     practicable time.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--In the absence of fraud or bad 
     faith, no interactive computer service (as defined in section 
     1085(a) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 
     903) shall be liable for any damages, penalty, or forfeiture, 
     civil or criminal, for any reasonable course of action taken 
     to comply with a court order issued under subsection (b) or 
     (c) of this section.
       (e) Protection of Privacy.--Nothing in this title or the 
     amendments made by this title shall be construed to authorize 
     an affirmative obligation on an interactive computer 
     service--
       (1) to monitor use of its service; or
       (2) except as required by an order of a court, to access, 
     remove or disable access to material where such material 
     reveals conduct prohibited by this section and the amendments 
     made by this section.
       (f) No Effect on Other Remedies.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect any remedy under section 1084 or 
     1085 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this 
     title, or under any other Federal or State law. The 
     availability of relief under this section shall not depend 
     on, or be affected by, the initiation or resolution of any 
     action under section 1084 or 1085 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by this title, or under any other Federal or 
     State law.
       (g) Continuous Jurisdiction.--The court shall have 
     continuous jurisdiction under this section to enforce section 
     1085 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 
     903.

[[Page H7271]]

     SEC. 905. REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress 
     that includes--
       (1) an analysis of the problems, if any, associated with 
     enforcing section 1085 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     added by section 903;
       (2) recommendations for the best use of the resources of 
     the Department of Justice to enforce that section; and
       (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being 
     used to gamble on the Internet.

     SEC. 906. REPORT ON COSTS.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit a report to 
     Congress that includes--
       (1) an analysis of existing and potential methods or 
     technologies for filtering or screening transmissions in 
     violation of section 1085 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     added by section 903, that originate outside of the 
     territorial boundaries of any State or the United States;
       (2) a review of the effect, if any, on interactive computer 
     services of any court ordered temporary restraining orders or 
     injunctions imposed on those services under this section;
       (3) a calculation of the cost to the economy of illegal 
     gambling on the Internet, and other societal costs of such 
     gambling; and
       (4) an estimate of the effect, if any, on the Internet 
     caused by any court ordered temporary restraining orders or 
     injunctions imposed under this title.

     SEC. 907. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this 
     title, or the application of such provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this 
     title, and the application of the provisions of such to any 
     person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I tell my colleague who objected, I intend to withdraw this amendment 
after a short statement, after engaging in a colloquy with a few 
Members on my side and also one on his side.
  I realize that prohibiting Internet gambling is a hot button issue 
today, but I think there is a majority in Congress that strongly 
believes that such a prohibition is needed to prevent the disease of 
gambling from infecting the Internet. That is why I have offered the 
same bill that Senator Kyl has offered in the Senate that passed by 90 
to 10, and I believe introducing the Kyl language here in the House 
would be very important.
  I want to move that forward. I have received strong support both in 
the committee, the Committee on Commerce, as well as from the National 
Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, National 
Association of Attorneys General and other groups that are adversely 
affected with the continuance of Internet gambling.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in 
this issue.
  As he knows, illegal gambling on the Internet is a rapidly growing 
industry. The Justice Department estimates that $600 million was bet 
illegally on sports alone over the Internet last year, a tenfold 
increase over the previous year. I applaud my friend from Arizona, Mr. 
Kyl, in the Senate for moving legislation in the other body. I want to 
assure my friend from Florida that we are currently working in the 
Committee on the Judiciary to move corresponding legislation before the 
August recess.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the Gentleman's 
interest in this issue. Illegal gambling on the internet is a rapidly 
growing industry--the Justice Department estimates that $600 million 
was bet illegally on sports alone over the internet last year, a 
tenfold increase over 1996. Congress must take action this year to curb 
illegal internet gambling, and I have introduced legislation that would 
clamp down on this type of activity.
  I applaud my friend from Arizona for moving legislation in the other 
body to address this issue, and I want to assure my friend from Florida 
that we are currently working in the Judiciary Committee to move 
corresponding legislation before the August recess. As my friend is 
aware, however, a number of areas and concerns surrounding this issue 
are still outstanding, and I want to assure the Gentleman that we are 
currently working with all parties to resolve those issues as we 
continue to move the process forward. I would therefore at this time 
ask that the Gentleman withdraw his amendment, so that we might 
continue working through the Committee process to produce a strong 
piece of legislation to combat internet gambling.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I recognize there 
are some areas of the Senate bill that need to be improved and 
clarified, particularly with the treatment of sports fantasy and 
educational games and treatment of advertising. As the process moves 
forward in the House, I look forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the gentleman that 
Internet gaming is a very serious problem. It is my understanding that 
the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment and that the chairman 
of the Committee on Commerce has agreed to hold a hearing on his bill 
in September.
  I appreciate that the gentleman has agreed to consider an amendment, 
I hope the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) would, too, that 
would leave the enforcement of Indian gaming with the National Indian 
Gaming Commission which was established under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act passed by Congress in 1988. I certainly share his 
concern on this Internet gaming.
  The National Indian Gaming Commission is the Federal entity that 
should enforce the restrictions on Indian Internet gaming under the 
gentleman's bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think we can also 
take that into account.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I applaud my friend and colleague from 
Florida for his interest in placing a ban on Internet gambling. This 
issue not only is very important to the people of Nevada but absolutely 
is essential to protect American children as well as the integrity of 
the legalized gambling industry.
  Allowing gambling to be performed on the Internet would open the 
floodgates for corruption, abuse and fraud. Internet gambling is a 
virtual Pandora's box that, if opened, would have an irreversible 
effect on millions of American people.
  Banning Internet gaming is necessary to prevent widespread abuse from 
occurring. Unscrupulous operators could bilk millions of dollars out of 
unsuspecting customers, leaving the affected without recourse.

                              {time}  2145

  Another risk presented by Internet gaming involves young children in 
regulated gaming establishments all across this country. Security 
guards are required to check by law the identification of anyone 
appearing to be below the age of 21. With Internet gaming, however, 
minors, armed with nothing more than a credit card number, could easily 
access these gaming sites and literally squander their families' 
savings and income. Mr. Chairman, on the Internet gaming children can 
establish overseas betting accounts easier than they can sneak into an 
R-rated movie.
  With all the rise in computers and Internet access, Internet gaming 
operations are growing equally as fast. We must not forget that there 
are millions of innocent users that could become serious victims if we 
are not careful in managing this incredible tool.
  There are 50 million households with computers and 25 million of 
these computers have

[[Page H7272]]

access to the Internet. Experts are predicting an explosion in the 
growth of households with Internet access. By the turn of the century, 
most schools and libraries will be on-line. It is important to 
recognize that the computer industry is not the only one profiting off 
of the explosion in computer availability. Internet gaming operations 
are growing equally as fast.
  Most would agree that the Internet is a great educational tool and an 
extremely valuable source for all sorts of information. This resource 
must be shielded from the dangers associated with its unrestricted use. 
We must not forget that there are millions of innocent users that could 
become serious victims if we are not careful in managing this 
incredible tool.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud Mr. Stearns for brining this issue to the 
House floor.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to recognize the hard work that other Members have done here tonight 
and also to recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), who has worked hard on this, as well as the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and others who are supporting this.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and thank him for withdrawing the amendment and appreciate the 
concerns he has raised about further refinement of this amendment and 
legislation.
  I also want to raise concerns about the treatment of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act under the provisions of the amendment as written, 
and would hope that they would take into consideration the fact that 
that is the Federal regulatory agency for the regulation of Indian 
gaming.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  Mr. McINTOSH. 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. McIntosh:
       At the end of the bill (immediately before the short 
     title), insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for participation by United 
     States delegates to the Standing Consultative Commission in 
     any activity of the Commission to implement the Memorandum of 
     Understanding Relating to the Treaty Between the United 
     States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
     on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of May 
     26, 1972, entered into in New York on September 26, 1997, by 
     the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  How quickly we forget, or fail to learn the most important lessons of 
history. It was just 60 years ago when Winston Churchill struggled 
mightily to build a defensive air radar system in Britain to protect 
against Nazi threat. The British establishment, the appeasers, as he 
called them, mocked and scoffed him for this effort. They said there 
was no threat. How wrong they were. Because Churchill persevered, they 
did build a radar system and beat the Nazis.
  Today, we are engaged in a similar debate. The cosponsor of this 
amendment, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), has worked to 
bring to our attention since 1995, and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston), for many, many years, that there is a real threat of 
a ballistic missile attack on the United States. Yet the State 
Department establishment, like that of Britain in the 1930s, ignores or 
ridicules those who recognize a missile threat, but they do so at each 
of our peril.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I are introducing 
this amendment because the American people deserve to have a choice in 
this decision. The Clinton administration is trying to negotiate a new 
antiballistic missile treaty with the four successor states to the 
Soviet Union and to implement it without sending it to the Senate for 
ratification.
  Now, a complete, fair and open debate is needed on renewing this ABM 
Treaty, and the Senate should have the opportunity to act properly and 
ratify any such treaty.
  The fact is, today we do not have the ability to intercept a single 
missile fired at us by an enemy or a madman. Americans would be shocked 
if they found this out, but it is the truth. What is even worse about 
this new ABM Treaty is not only will a national missile defense system 
not be possible, but there are new restrictions on a theater missile 
defense program that could protect our troops overseas.
  My amendment, quite simply, would say the bureaucracy responsible for 
implementing the ABM Treaty cannot spend any funds for further 
implementing the new treaty or any policies consistent with a new 
treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, I finish by asking my colleagues a rhetorical question. 
What would they do the day after a missile attack from Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, or North Korea destroyed one of our cities? The very next day we 
would all be on this House floor demanding there be construction of 
such a missile protection system repelling such an attack.
  Why wait for the tragedy? Let us do something now and spare the lives 
of the innocent Americans that would be lost. Please join me in 
approving this amendment to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I 
yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to state from the outset that the intent of this 
amendment is a blatant attempt to negate the United States' obligation 
to continue to adhere to the antiballistic missile treaty so that 
proponents of deployment of additional missile defense systems in the 
U.S. can justify their campaign to deploy just such a system.
  In my view, the deployment of such additional systems would not only 
violate U.S. treaty obligations with Russia but, more importantly, 
would destabilize our national security by setting back ongoing arms 
control negotiations with Russia and other former Soviet republics, and 
by encouraging newly emerging nuclear states to proceed without 
restrictions.
  Many of the proponents of this amendment continue to be critical of 
this administration's policies to restrain India and Pakistan from 
conducting nuclear tests. Now, their efforts may have fallen short of 
their goals and, indeed, the world has become less secure today as a 
result. But the question is what is the next step?
  The proponents of this amendment would have us throw out a standing 
arms control treaty that has been in place since 1972 so that they can 
pursue an expensive and widely premature plan to deploy an elaborate 
missile defense system that is years away from being able to work.
  The administration's intentions with respect to the Memorandum of 
Understanding on the ABM Treaty's succession have been made abundantly 
clear and are enunciated in a letter of May 21st from the President to 
the chairman of the authorizing committees. That letter says plainly 
that the administration ``will provide to the Senate, for its advice 
and consent, the Memorandum of Understanding of the ABM Treaty's 
succession.'' The letter further clarifies that, ``Despite the breakup 
of the Soviet Union, the ABM Treaty is still in force with Russia and 
notification of the MOU is necessary to remove any ambiguities about 
how the treaty applies to other countries.''
  It is also clearly the understanding that the administration intends 
to submit the MOU on the ABM Treaty's succession after the Russian Duma 
has ratified START II. The timing of the submission to the Senate is 
based on the orderly progression of arms control regimes and was, in 
fact, developed in cooperation with the relevant parties of the U.S. 
Senate.
  This amendment stops all activity to bring the Memorandum of 
Understanding on the ABM Treaty's succession to reality. I wonder how 
the passage of this amendment will affect the Russian Duma and the 
prospects of their action? I wonder what signals it sends to

[[Page H7273]]

India and Pakistan, who are on the verge of war in Kashmir, both armed 
with nuclear weapons?
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to unilaterally abrogate the ABM 
Treaty on the basis of 20 minutes debate in the middle of the night. 
That is what this supposedly modest amendment tries to do. A vote 
against this amendment is a vote to recognize that Congress should not 
take such irresponsible actions without clearly thinking out the 
consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I think about the ABM Treaty that was implemented between the Soviet 
Union and the United States in 1972 in an entirely different political 
world and in an entirely different technological world. Those were 
different times. They threatened to blow us up, we threatened to blow 
them up.
  The Soviet Union does not exist any more, but the ABM Treaty is here, 
notwithstanding the fact that the technological developments of the 
computer age have totally transformed this dangerous world of ours.
  Look at the headlines: May 1st. China targets nukes at the U.S. June 
16th. China assists Iran, Libya with missiles. June 17th. North Korea 
admits missile sales. Then we see the Indian and the Pakistani bombs 
blow up.
  We are living in a nuclear age and the arms negotiators are still 
negotiating a 1972 treaty with the old Soviet Union that does not even 
exist.
  We have to give up this arms negotiation. It does not work. Let us 
defend Americans. Let us start deploying missile systems that intercept 
their missiles and we do not have to worry about who blows up the next 
bomb in the next place.
  We need do defend our American citizens. We need to defend the 
continental United States. We need to defend U.S. troops abroad. We 
need to defend our allies all around the world.
  We could do it if this President use one word that has been absent in 
his vocabulary in the 6 years that he has been President of the United 
States: Deployment, deployment of missile defense systems.
  This gentleman's amendment simple says, let us stop this arms 
negotiation, or at least if you are going to revise the ABM Treaty of 
1972, come to the Senate for the advice and consent demanded under the 
Constitution of the United States and make sure that what you are doing 
has any logic and common sense whatsoever, because right now it does 
not.
  I urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, let us understand what this is really all 
about. this is the de facto abrogation of the ABM Treaty because we 
would be prohibited, under the terms of this amendment, from 
participating in the Standing Consultative Committee under the ABM 
Treaty, which is the body that deals with compliance issues.
  How will that be interpreted by the Russians who are still debating 
START II ratification? It will be seen by them as essentially an 
abrogation, as the start down the road toward the development of a 
broad missile defense system in this country.
  That, in turn, will mean that all of our efforts to reduce nuclear 
missile armaments in the old Soviet Union, now in Russia, will grind to 
a halt and play directly into the hands of the nationalist sentiments 
in Russia to hang on to every missile that they now possess.
  Now, if we think that is going to produce a more secure world for the 
United States, I beg to differ.
  This is fundamentally, profoundly nuts. It is going in absolutely the 
wrong direction. It is inviting an aggravation in a very, very dicey 
and delicate path that we are trying to walk down, nuclear disarmament 
and the reduction of nuclear arms.
  Now, if that is what the other side wants, so be it, but let us not 
pretend that anything else is at issue here but that fundamental 
question of a fork in the road. Do we want to continue to work with the 
Russians to reduce their stockpiles, to get the START III, to bring 
down the level of nuclear threat in the world?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman acknowledge that 
despite the passage of some 5 years' of time the Russians have yet to 
even ratify START II, let alone START III?
  Mr. SKAGGS. We have already acknowledged that and it is a 
prerequisite to getting to START III, which I assume the gentleman 
would agree would be in our national interest, but maybe not. Maybe he 
thinks we should hang on to more nuclear weapons.
   Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the 
first thing to do is to defend the American people.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is the practical 
consequence of the adoption of this amendment. Members should be under 
no allusion to the contrary. This amendment guts the ABM. It prohibits 
our participation in compliance activities. It will be seen, without 
any question, by the Russians as a reversal afield on the whole regime 
of nuclear arms limitation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 5 
minutes remaining, and the right to close.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that the proponents of ABM refer to that 
system as MAD. If they think this is nuts, that is MAD, mutually 
assured destruction. It is truly madness that we would hold innocent 
populations hostage the way we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us get our facts 
straight here. I chair the Duma Congress Study Group. I probably spend 
as much time with members of Duma as any Member of this Congress. In 
fact, I know over 200 of them personally.
  Let us not put rhetoric on the table. Let us talk about this 
amendment. This amendment does not abrogate the ABM Treaty. In fact, I 
have been the one to offer to stand up and oppose any attempt to 
deliberately abrogate the Treaty.
  What does it do? It stops this administration from imposing 
significant amendments and expansion of the ABM Treaty that harm our 
national security without the advice and consent of the Senate. That is 
all it does.
  Five times this body has gone on the record and said that the U.S. 
Senate must be consulted. The ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations just made a statement. He said the President said he 
will submit that to the Senate.
  Well, I will call to the attention of my colleague and friend a 
letter sent on May 1, 1998, by Secretary Cohen to the services saying, 
``you will begin to implement the Missile Defense Treaty signed.'' That 
has already been done.
  And following that, the Secretary for Research and Development, John 
Douglas, has begun already implementing this agreement without the 
Senate even being considered to give the document to them. That is 
already in place.
  What we are saying is give the Senate the chance. Why do we say that? 
Now, the gentleman talked about the negotiations in Geneva. I went 
there. I think I am the only House member that sat across from General 
Koltunof, the chief Russian negotiator, for 2\1/2\ hours.
  I said to the general, why do you want to expand the Treaty to 
include Belorus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine? They do not have ICBMs. He 
said, congressman, you are asking that question

[[Page H7274]]

to the wrong person. We did propose to expand the ABM Treaty. The 
gentleman sitting next to you, Stanley Rivilus, our chief negotiator.
  Why do we want to expand the ABM Treaty, because it locks us into a 
treaty that we cannot modify for our own best interests. What about the 
demarcation limitations, the other expansion? The demarcation 
limitations do not down our missile defense capability.
  Let me show my colleagues something that I got today. This is a 
document of the most capable Russian air defense system that they just 
tried to sell to Israel. This system we cannot match. It is better than 
PAC-3 when it is deployed. It is called the ANTEI-2500.
  This system, I wonder where the demarcation numbers came from. This 
system just barely complies with them. So now what we found is this 
administration has agreed to demarcation standards that benefit Russia, 
that give Russia a capability that we cannot go beyond, even though 
this system is better than our PAC-3.
  If my colleagues support Israel, if they support Israel's defense, if 
they support the defense of this country and our ability to develop 
capable theater missile defense systems, then they will support this 
amendment. All it does is it says that we will withhold the funding 
from ACTA until the Senate is given the required documentation. That is 
all it does.
  It does not abrogate any treaty. It does not control the 
administration. It says, let the Congress play its rightful role. And I 
think this Congress deserves to do that because we need to understand 
our lives and our friends and our allies who are at risk here.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  With all due respect to the expertise of the gentleman who just 
spoke, for this Congress, at a little after 10:00 in the evening, with 
no hearings and no reasonably thoughtful debate on the subject, for 
this Congress to take an action which prevents this administration from 
proceeding to do anything to modernize the very treaty that the other 
side says must be modernized would be the consummate act of arrogance 
and ridiculousness performed by this Congress in the entire session. It 
would bring great discredit on the Congress, and we ought not to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is not an issue about the role of missile defenses. In the wake 
of the end of the Cold War and in the context of a very dangerous world 
where rogue states and accidental launches loom larger than ever in 
terms of the problems, I think it is appropriate to think about and 
reconsider questions of missile defenses.
  The fact is every single active program that we are involved in the 
area of theater missile defenses PAC-3, THAAD, U.S. Navy Area Wide, all 
under development, researched, every one of them as currently 
configured and designed are fully compliant with the ABM Treaty.
  This is a question about the breakup of the Soviet Union, when we 
signed, just like we did with START II, when we signed those 
obligations to the successor states, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, 
Belorus, whether those obligations are going to apply.
  The administration has made it absolutely clear, as soon as the Duma 
ratifies START II, the President is going to Russia to advance that 
cause in the next few weeks, he will submit to the Senate for 
ratification not only the memorandum of understanding but the two 
agreements related to it that are cause of concern.
  The Senate will have every opportunity to exercise its constitutional 
rights with respect to these particular issues.
  Stopping the funding for the Standing Consultative Committee and for 
our ability to participate in it does not advance the cause. Let us get 
down to the basic questions. What kinds of missile defenses are 
feasible? To what extent do we need to break out of ABM? To what extent 
do we have a strategy to do this in cooperation with Russia and the 
other parties down to the ABM agreement in a way that both is in our 
interests and something that we can convince is in their interest as 
well so we can protect against the concerns that the proponents of this 
amendment want?
  I urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 2\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me answer the 
distinguished ranking member.
  First of all, he says there has been no debate on this issue. I would 
remind my colleague there have been 5 separate votes on this issue on 
this floor. And I will include those votes, in the Congressional 
Record.
  Since 1995, this body has voted 5 times, overwhelmingly each time, to 
require that this administration before it takes plans to implement 
submit that treaty to the Senate.
  Our point is that this administration is already implementing the 
terms of the agreement. I just read to the gentleman a letter dated May 
1, 1998, from Secretary Cohen to the services saying to proceed with 
implementing new missile defense treaties. Agreed to in September of 
1997.
  It is already underway. It is preceding even giving the treaty to the 
Senate which this body has voted on 5 times overwhelmingly in favor of. 
You have to match the facts with the rhetoric, and the rhetoric coming 
from that side just does not match the facts. Support the amendment of 
the gentleman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say we have had a vote earlier 
on the Kolbe amendment. Perhaps my colleagues saw the Kolbe amendment 
pass. I think it was almost 400.
  The problem is here in the House we are starting to feel the 
President is moving out not just on his own agenda, whether it be 
domestic or social, he is also moving out on a military agenda. As the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) mentioned, he is using the 
word ``proceed'' forward with a treaty without going to the Senate to 
ratify.
  So it is appropriate today, tonight when we think about the executive 
orders, to also put in perspective that the President is moving out on 
a defense agenda without Congress, and all my colleague is saying is 
hold it, hold it. Let us not move forward without the Senate.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would point out that in 1996, this House passed a virtually 
identical amendment that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the McIntosh-Weldon amendment. The 
Clinton administration's record on missile defense has been very, very 
weak. Incredibly, on June 23, the President vetoed the Iran Missile 
Proliferation Sanction Act. And only one month later, on July 23, the 
White House confirmed that Iran had tested a missile with a range of 
800 miles the previous day.
  Clearly, Cold War or no Cold War, the world remains a very dangerous 
place. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration consistently fails to 
see that danger.
  Rogue nations are continuing to attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry. 
And our liberal friends are always saying that we must do this for the 
children, do that for the children. If we really want to do something 
for the children of this Nation, we ought to make sure that they are 
protected from the threat of nuclear weapons falling upon their home 
towns.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page H7275]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is 
going to quote me, just for the heck of it, it would be nice if he 
would quote me accurately.
  I never said that there was no debate in the Congress on this 
subject. I said that there was no thoughtful debate tonight, and I 
stand by that comment.
  I will simply say, Mr. Chairman, that despite all of the rhetoric 
tonight, the practical effect of this action is to unilaterally take 
the United States out of compliance with the ABM Treaty. That is no 
response that any responsible legislative body would make, and I cannot 
believe that the gentleman is suggesting that we do anything like it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for closing.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, there is a season for everything. There is 
a time to ratify START II, and that is now, immediately, as soon as we 
can get the Duma to do it. And then there is a time to ratify START 
III. It comes right on the heels of START II. And that should come 
immediately. It should come next after we have completed the work on 
START II.
  Once we do that we will have the warheads in each of our arsenals 
down to 2,000 to 3,000 strategic warheads each. At that point in time, 
it will be the season to take up the ABM Treaty and look at it, because 
in many ways it is a relic of the Cold War and it has outlived many of 
its purposes.
  But, for the time being, it is a symbol of stability. We pull the rug 
out from the ABM, the Standing Consultative Committee, we abruptly cut 
off funding, and that is a signal to the Russians that they better be 
careful and think twice about ratifying START II. And everything begins 
to become unraveled.
  There is nothing in these negotiations that gives rise to any 
immediate problems. We are trying to define the demarcation between 
strategic and theater weapons. In doing so, we have chosen to define 
the difference as being the planner in which the system, the 
interceptor, is tested. Is it tested against an incoming object that 
would be the speed of an RV coming from the exoatmosphere if launched 
by an ICBM, or is it traveling at the speed of a tactical or theater 
missile, a much lower speed? If it is tested only against the latter, 
then it is a theater defense system. If it is tested against an ICBM 
speed RV, then it is a strategic system.
  It is a practical distinction. I do not think it serves a great deal 
of purpose. But, for the time being, in order to maintain our relations 
with the Soviets, with the Russians, to stabilize them to try to get 
START II ratified and START III negotiated, it makes sense not to 
rattle their cage on the ABM Treaty.
  This is not the kind of diplomacy or legislation we need now. It is 
not necessary. The law is already on the books. And it is not going to 
impede one single thing if these demarcation rules were implemented by 
the President.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the distinguished gentleman form Indiana, Mr. McIntosh.
  The amendment is designed to correct something that shouldn't require 
correcting, but regrettably does.
  Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a 
question about which countries, if any, succeeded to the obligations of 
the Soviet Union under various arms control treaties. This question has 
been particularly acute with regard to the Anti-Ballistic Missile, or 
ABM, Treaty.
  The administration has had a very hard time making up its mind about 
what countries, if any, succeeded automatically to the Soviet Union's 
obligations under the ABM Treaty. At one point, they appeared to 
suggest there was no automatic successor at all. More recently, they 
have implied that Russia alone is the successor.
  The Heritage Foundation recently released an excellent legal analysis 
concluding that, as a matter of international and domestic law, there 
is no successor and therefore the ABM Treaty has lapsed.
  In an effort to clarify the legal situation, I have exchanged a 
series of letters with the President on this subject. I ask unanimous 
consent that this correspondence be inserted in the Record at this 
point.
  The administration has attempted to deal with this uncertainty by 
negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding that would make four 
countries successors to the Soviet Union for purposes of the ABM 
Treaty: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Under pressure from 
the Senate, the President has agreed to submit this Memorandum of 
Understanding for Senate advice and consent.
  Many Members of both the House and the Senate question the wisdom of 
the Memorandum of Understanding, and perhaps because of this, the 
President has delayed submitting it to the Senate.
  The McIntosh amendment deals with the likelihood that the 
administration will act as though the Memorandum of Understanding is in 
effect even though it has not been approved by the Senate. It is 
designed, in other words, to hold the President to his commitment to 
the Senate.
  I would note the obvious fact that this amendment is not intended to 
prevent U.S. participation in the Standing Consultative Commission if 
the President submits and the Senate ratifies the Memorandum of 
Understanding on succession.
  Under the rules of the House governing our deliberations today, 
however, it is not in order to include such an exception in the text of 
the amendment. I am sure that this is a matter that will be addressed 
in conference.
  It is a very good amendment, and it deserves our support.
                                         House of Representatives,


                         Committee on International Relations,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Last week the House of Representatives 
     approved H.R. 1758, the ``European Security Act of 1997.'' I 
     originally introduced this legislation on April 24th of this 
     year with the cosponsorship of Dick Armey, Jerry Solomon, 
     Porter Goss, Curt Weldon, and others to address a number of 
     issues bearing on U.S. relations with Russia.
       Pursuant to House Resolution 159, the European Security Act 
     as passed by the House has been appended to H.R. 1757, the 
     ``Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
     and 1999.'' Inasmuch as the Senate companion measure to H.R. 
     1757 is scheduled for Senate floor action this week, it 
     appears likely that the European Security Act will be 
     addressed in a House-Senate conference committee in the very 
     near future.
       As we prepare for conference on the European Security Act, 
     we find it necessary to ask for additional information 
     relevant to one of the bill's provisions relating to 
     multilateralization of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) 
     Treaty.
       Section 6(c)(1) of the European Security Act states that:
       ``It is the sense of the Congress that until the United 
     States has taken the steps necessary to ensure that the ABM 
     Treaty remains a bilateral treaty between the United States 
     and the Russian Federation (such state being the only 
     successor state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
     that has deployed or realistically may deploy an anti-
     ballistic missile defense system), no ABM/TMD demarcation 
     agreement will be considered for approval for entry into 
     force with respect to the United States . . .''
       I am aware that, subsequent to the introduction of the 
     European Security Act, the Senate on May 14th approved Treaty 
     Doc. No. 105-5, a resolution advising and consenting to 
     ratification of the CFE Flank Agreement. Condition 9 of this 
     resolution required the President to:
       ``. . . certify to Congress that he will submit for Senate 
     advice and consent to ratification any international 
     agreement . . . that would add one or more countries as 
     States Parties to the ABM Treaty, or otherwise convert the 
     ABM Treaty from a bilateral treaty to a multilateral treaty . 
     . .''
       I am further aware that, on May 15th, you submitted to 
     Congress the certification required by Condition 9 of Treaty 
     Doc. No. 105-5.
       In order to help the conferees on the European Security Act 
     understand the degree to which section 6(c)(1) of that bill 
     has been addressed (and perhaps rendered unnecessary) by 
     Condition 9 of Treaty Doc. 105-5, I would appreciate 
     receiving your prompt response to the following questions:
       1. In the view of the Administration, what countries in 
     addition to the United States are today parties to the ABM 
     Treaty?
       2. What countries sent representatives to the most recent 
     meeting of the Standing Consultative Commission in Geneva?
       3. To the extent that the list of countries identified in 
     response to question no. 1 includes countries in addition to 
     those identified in response to question no. 2, does the 
     Administration believe that those additional countries have 
     the legal right to send representatives to meetings of the 
     Standing

[[Page H7276]]

     Consultative Commission and otherwise participate in the 
     administration of the ABM Treaty?
       4. To the extent that the list of countries identified in 
     response to question no. 1 includes countries in addition to 
     those identified in response to question no. 2, why are those 
     additional countries not currently participating in the 
     Standing Consultative Commission? Are those additional 
     countries aware that, in the view of the United States 
     Government, they are parties to and are bound by the ABM 
     Treaty? On what date were they informed of this fact by the 
     United States Government?
       5. To the extent that the list of countries identified in 
     response to question no. 2 includes countries in addition to 
     those identified in response to question no. 1, what is the 
     legal justification for the participation of those additional 
     countries in the Standing Consultative Commission?
       6. Does the Administration currently intend to conclude 
     with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, or any other of 
     the newly independent states an agreement or agreements 
     regarding ABM Treaty succession?
       7. In the event that the Senate fails to act on an 
     agreement submitted to it by the Administration regarding ABM 
     Treaty succession, what countries in addition to the United 
     States will, in the view of the Administration, be parties to 
     the ABM Treaty?
       8. In the event that the Senate votes to reject an 
     agreement submitted to it by the Administration regarding ABM 
     Treaty succession, what countries in addition to the United 
     States will, in the view of the Administration, be parties to 
     the ABM Treaty?
       9. Apart from the consequences that would flow from Senate 
     approval of, rejection of, or inaction on an agreement 
     submitted to it by the Administration regarding ABM Treaty 
     succession, what other developments, if any, may lead to a 
     change in the list of countries that are today parties to the 
     ABM Treaty?
       10. Apart from the consequences that would flow from the 
     Senate approval of, rejection of, or inaction on an agreement 
     submitted to it by the Administration regarding ABM Treaty 
     succession, what other developments, if any, may lead to a 
     change in the list of countries legally entitled to send 
     representatives to meetings of the Standing Consultative 
     Commission and otherwise participate in the administration of 
     the ABM Treaty?
       I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
       With warmest regards,
           Sincerely,
                                               Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

  



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, November 21, 1997.
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning the 
     Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty succession arrangements. 
     As you know, after discussion between our staffs, we deferred 
     this formal response to your letter pending completion of the 
     ABM-related agreements, including the Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MOU) on ABM Treaty succession. These documents 
     were signed on September 26, 1997, and mark, along with the 
     START II documents that were signed the same day, a 
     significant step forward. The MOU, as well as the agreements 
     relating to the demarcation between theater and strategic 
     ballistic missile defense systems, will be provided to the 
     Senate for its advice and consent. Thus, the Congressional 
     concerns that you raised related to approval of these 
     agreements have been directly addressed.
       You raised a number of questions on ABM Treaty succession 
     generally. Let me make a few background points. The MOU on 
     succession was the result of detailed negotiations spanning 
     several years. When the USSR dissolved at the end of 1991, it 
     became necessary to reach agreement as to which former Soviet 
     states would collectively assume its rights and obligations 
     under the Treaty (which clearly continued in force by its own 
     terms). The United States took the view that, as a general 
     principle, agreements between the United States and the USSR 
     that were in force at the time of the dissolution of the 
     Soviet Union would be presumed to continue in force as to the 
     former Republics. It became clear, however, particularly in 
     the area of arms control, that a case-by-case review of each 
     agreement was necessary.
       In dealing with matters of succession, a key U.S. objective 
     has been to preserve the substance of the original treaty 
     regime as closely as possible. This was true with respect to 
     the elaboration of the MOU as well. Accordingly, the MOU 
     works to preserve the original object and purpose of the 
     Treaty. For example, it restricts the four successor states 
     to only those rights held by the former Soviet Union by 
     limiting them collectively to no more than 100 interceptors 
     on 100 launchers at a single ABM deployment area and 
     precluding the transfer of ABM systems and components to 
     states that are not Party to the Treaty. Neither a simple 
     recognition of Russia as the sole ABM successor (which would 
     have ignored several former Soviet states with significant 
     ABM interests) nor a simple recognition of all NIS states as 
     full ABM successors would have preserved fully the original 
     purpose and substance of the Treaty, as approved by the 
     Senate in 1972.
       Our willingness to work with key successor states, in 
     addition to Russia, on strategic arms control issues has 
     served, and will continue to serve, U.S. national security 
     interests. Under the Lisbon Protocol to the START I Treaty, 
     Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine, the successor states 
     on whose territory all strategic offensive arms of the former 
     Soviet Union were based and all declared START-related 
     facilities were located, assumed the rights and obligations 
     of the former Soviet Union under the START I Treaty. The 
     Protocol also obligated Belaraus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to 
     adhere to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons. Both the Bush Administration and Clinton 
     Administration engaged in major diplomatic initiatives to 
     ensure implementation of the Lisbon Protocol, especially with 
     respect to the removal of all nuclear warheads from Ukraine, 
     Belarus, and Kazakhstan; the accession of these successor 
     states to the Nonproliferation Treaty; and the entry into 
     force of START I.
       For certain key successor states to the former Soviet 
     Union, ABM Treaty succession was, and remains, a priority 
     issue. Ukraine, in particular, has made clear to us that it 
     considers Ukraine's legal status under the ABM Treaty to be 
     the same as under the INF Treaty (to which it is considered a 
     Party) and that, in its view, its succession status with 
     regard to both Treaties should be the same.
       There are many complex factors in our strategic 
     relationship with the former Soviet states. Had we been 
     unwilling to engage with states in addition to Russia on key 
     arms control agreements (START, INF and ABM), it is unlikely 
     that we would have achieved the kind of comprehensive 
     resolution of issues related to the disposition of strategic 
     assets that has been achieved. A change in course at this 
     time that would exclude key successor states from the ABM 
     succession formula could place at risk continued progress on 
     strategic arms and other nuclear matters.
       Since the last review of the ABM Treaty in 1993 (required 
     every five years by the terms of the Treaty, Belarus, 
     Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine--each of which have ABM 
     Treaty-related assets on its territory--have been the only 
     former Soviet republics that have participated in the ABM 
     Treaty-related discussions held in the Standing Consultative 
     Commission (SCC). While the other eight former Soviet 
     republics have been informed of SCC sessions, none has 
     participated, and three--Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldovia--
     have expressed their lack of interest in being considered as 
     Parties to the Treaty. Indeed, it has become clear over the 
     past four years of negotiations that, in addition to Russia, 
     the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and 
     Ukraine have substantial interest in the specific subject 
     matter of the Treaty. For these reasons, prior to the signing 
     of the MOU, the United States notified the other eight new 
     independent states of our intentions to bring the succession 
     issue to closure and to sign the MOU with Belarus, 
     Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, recognizing 
     that these four successor states along with the United 
     States, constitute the Parties to the ABM Treaty.
       Upon its entry into force, the MOU will confirm the four 
     former Soviet states participating in the SCC as the 
     successor states to the Soviet Union for purposes of the 
     Treaty. This does not constitute a substantive modification 
     of rights and obligations under the Treaty; rather, it is a 
     recognition of the status of those former Soviet republics in 
     light of dissolution of the USSR. As a practical matter, the 
     recently signed SCC regulations make clear that the increased 
     SCC participation will be structured in a way similar to, and 
     having the same effect as, that which has been successful for 
     the United States in working with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia 
     and Ukraine in implementing the START and INF Treaties.
       As to your question regarding the possibility that the 
     Senate might fail to act upon or might reject the MOU on 
     succession, we believe that the case for all the ABM-related 
     agreements, including the MOU on succession, will prevail on 
     its merits. We further believe that the package of agreements 
     serves U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. 
     If, however, the Senate were to fail to act or to disagree 
     and disapprove the agreements, succession arrangements will 
     simply remain unsettled. The ABM Treaty itself would clearly 
     remain in force.
       We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the record in 
     this area and look forward to future opportunities to 
     communicate and consult with you on these matters.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: We appreciate your response of November 
     21, 1997, to Chairman Gulman's letter of June 16, 1997, 
     regarding the proposed multilateralization of the Anti-
     Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. We appreciate as well your 
     making Administration lawyers available to meet with 
     congressional staff on January 30, 1998, to elaborate on your 
     November 21st response.
       The most important legal question that arises in connection 
     with multilateralization of the ABM Treaty is the first 
     question posed in Chairman Gilman's letter: In the view of

[[Page H7277]]

     the Administration, what countries in addition to the United 
     States are today parties to the ABM Treaty?
       Your response to this question appears to be: Until an 
     agreement on succession to the ABM Treaty comes into force, 
     the identity of the other party or parties to the ABM Treaty 
     is ``unsettled.'' Indeed, when asked on January 30th whether 
     Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, or any other country that 
     emerged from the Soviet Union is today prohibited by the ABM 
     Treaty from deploying an ABM system at more than one site, 
     Administration lawyers stated repeatedly that it is 
     ``unclear'' whether any of these countries is so bound.
       The Administration's response is profoundly disturbing. If 
     it is unclear as a matter of law whether Russia or any other 
     country that emerged from the Soviet Union is today bound by 
     the ABM Treaty, then it also should be unclear whether the 
     United States is so bound. Yet the Administration has 
     insisted for years that the United States remains fully bound 
     by the ABM Treaty.
       With regard to ballistic missile defense, for example, the 
     Administration has argued consistently that the United States 
     should not test or deploy certain systems that could provide 
     our nation highly effective protection against ballistic 
     missile attack because such systems would violate our 
     nation's obligations under the ABM Treaty. It now appears, 
     however, that the Administration views the United States, at 
     least for the time being, as the only country that is clearly 
     subject to those obligations.
       It is obvious to us, however, that under basic principles 
     of international law a treaty requires more than one state 
     party in order to give rise to binding legal obligations. If 
     the Administration is unable to identify any country in 
     addition to the United States that is today clearly bound by 
     the ABM Treaty, then there is no country that the United 
     States can look to today to uphold the obligations previously 
     imposed on the Soviet Union by the Treaty, and no country 
     that today is entitled to complain if the United States fails 
     to uphold the Treaty.
       If, in fact, the Administration does not consider the 
     United States to be the only country that is today clearly 
     bound by the ABM Treaty, we would appreciate your identifying 
     for us the other country (or countries) that is today party 
     to--and bound by--the Treaty. In the absence of such 
     clarification, we will have no choice but to conclude that 
     the ABM Treaty has lapsed until such time as the Senate 
     approves a succession agreement reviving the Treaty.
       Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin A. Gilman,
                   Chairman, Committee on International Relations.
     Jesse Helms,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, May 21, 1998.
     Hon. Benjamin Gilman,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning the 
     Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty succession arrangements. 
     As I said in my letter of November 21, 1997, the 
     Administration will provide to the Senate for its advice and 
     consent the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on ABM Treaty 
     succession, which was signed on September 26, 1997. Moreover, 
     the MOU will settle ABM Treaty succession. Upon its entry 
     into force, the MOU will confirm Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, 
     and Ukraine as the successor states to the Soviet Union for 
     purposes of the Treaty and make clear that only these four 
     states, along with the United States, are the ABM Treaty 
     Parties.
       In your letter of March 3, you state that if the 
     Administration is unable to identify any country in addition 
     to the United States that is clearly bound by the Treaty, 
     then you would have no choice but to conclude that the Treaty 
     has lapsed until such time as the Senate approves a 
     succession agreement reviving the Treaty.
       Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ten of the 
     twelve states of the former Soviet Union initially asserted a 
     right in a Commonwealth of Independent States resolution, 
     signed on October 9, 1992, in Bishkek, to assume obligations 
     as successor states to the Soviet Union for purposes of the 
     Treaty. Only four of these states have subsequently 
     participated in the work of the Standing Consultative 
     Commission (SCC), and none of the other six has reacted 
     negatively when we informed each of them that, pursuant to 
     the MOU, it will not be recognized as an ABM successor state. 
     A principal advantage of the Senate's approving the MOU is 
     that the MOU's entry into force will effectively dispose of 
     any such claim by any of the other six states.
       In contrast, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine each has ABM 
     Treaty-related assets on its territory; each has participated 
     in the work of the SCC; and each has affirmed its desire to 
     succeed to the obligations of the former Soviet Union under 
     the Treaty.
       Thus, a strong case can be made that, even without the MOU, 
     these three states are Parties to the Treaty.
       Finally, the United States and Russia clearly are Parties 
     to the Treaty. Each has reaffirmed its intention to be bound 
     by the Treaty; each has actively participated in every phase 
     of the implementation of the Treaty, including the work of 
     the SCC; and each has on its territory extensive ABM Treaty-
     related facilities.
       Thus, there is no question that the ABM Treaty has 
     continued in force and will continue in force even if the MOU 
     is not ratified. However, the entry into force of the MOU 
     remains essential. As I pointed out in my letter of November 
     21, the United States has a clear interest both in confirming 
     that these states (and only these states) are bound by the 
     obligations of the Treaty, and in resolving definitively the 
     issues about ABM Treaty succession that are dealt with in the 
     MOU. Without the MOU, ambiguity will remain about the extent 
     to which states other than Russia are Parties, and about the 
     way in which ABM Treaty obligations apply to the successors 
     to the Soviet Union. Equally important, maintaining the 
     viability of the ABM Treaty is key to further reductions in 
     strategic offensive forces under START II and START III.
       I appreciate this further opportunity to clarify the record 
     in this area.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the filing of a complaint, or any motion seeking 
     declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant thereto, in any 
     legal action brought under section 102(b)(2) of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3312(b)(2)) or section 102(b)(2) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3512(b)(2)).

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, imagine that your hometown or state 
passes a law that promotes restitution for Holocaust victims whose gold 
was pulled from their mouths, melted down, and then deposited in Swiss 
accounts by Nazis. And imagine that the World Trade Organization, an 
international tribunal of unelected trade bureaucrats, decides in 
Geneva that the law is inconsistent with international trade and 
investment agreements.
  Then the mayor and town legislature are hauled into federal court by 
the administration of the United States Government.

                              {time}  2215

  According to the GATT and NAFTA implementing legislation, the 
administration can sue to preempt the law and enforce the WTO decree, a 
power that was formerly reserved only for the United States Congress. 
The amendment that I offer this evening would deny funds for a Federal 
legal challenge against our State and local governments.
  I offer this amendment because Congress gave too much power to the 
administration by permitting it to preempt the laws of local and State 
governments on the grounds that they are inconsistent with 
international trade and investment agreements. That is the function of 
Congress. My amendment would effectively restore the separation of 
powers that has existed until 1993. It would protect important and 
valuable State and local laws.
  The administration has already stated its opposition to New York 
City's Holocaust victims compensation law. Unless we pass this 
amendment, the administration will be able to sue New York City and any 
other jurisdiction that dares to adopt such legislation. At risk, too, 
are the Burma selective purchase laws that 22 cities and four States 
around the country have enacted or are considering. Those are laws like 
the ones passed by Massachusetts, New York City and Portland, Oregon 
that limit municipal tax dollars from going to the military regime in

[[Page H7278]]

Burma through companies that do business in Burma. Nearly every State 
in the Nation has laws that are at risk if we do not pass this 
amendment tonight.
  Besides giving a club to the administration, the GATT and NAFTA 
implementing legislation has sent a chilling effect over local 
lawmaking. Earlier this year the State of Maryland considered passing a 
selective purchase law to promote human rights and to correct 
environmental abuses in Nigeria. The Federal Government showed up in 
Annapolis to warn lawmakers that the Maryland law would be GATT 
illegal. The threat of a Federal lawsuit backed up the State Department 
official's warning. In the face of such pressure, Maryland backed down.
  Not long ago, a repressive racist regime ran South Africa with an 
iron fist. Our cities and States responded with selective purchase and 
divestment laws. As Randall Robinson, President of TransAfrica said, 
``Had we been bound by such trade rules as these during our struggle to 
free South Africa, Nelson Mandela might still be imprisoned.''
  Mr. Chairman, some opponents of this amendment have claimed that 
State laws such as New York City's contemplated Holocaust victims 
compensation law are unconstitutional. That is not true. We agree with 
the conclusion of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department that State and 
local governments have the constitutional authority to determine with 
whom they do business. That opinion is founded firmly on Supreme Court 
decisions.
  Some opponents have said the administration is not required to sue 
State and local governments on the basis of any WTO decision, so this 
amendment is not necessary. That is not true. Consider the GATT panel 
order in the case commonly known as Beer II. There the GATT panel wrote 
that the States had to comply with GATT decisions and the Federal 
Government was required to force compliance. The GATT panel said, 
``GATT law is part of Federal law in the United States and as such is 
superior to GATT-inconsistent State law.''
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Kucinich/Sanders/Ros-Lehtinen/
DeFazio/Stearns amendment has received widespread support from a 
representative coalition of civic organizations: B'nai B'rith, Sierra 
Club, American Cause, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, Public 
Citizen, American Jewish Congress, Free Burma Coalition, TransAfrica, 
Simon Wiesenthal Center, Africa Fund, American Lands Alliance, Ralph 
Nader, Randall Robinson, Pat Buchanan and Bay Buchanan, Citizens Trades 
Campaign, the Preamble Center, Co-op America, the PEN American Center, 
the Front Range Fair Trade Coalition of Colorado, Alliance for 
Democracy, Open Society Institute's Burma Project, Citizens for 
Participation in Political Action, Seattle Burma Round Table, and the 
list goes on.
  Why have all these groups endorsed the amendment? Because all the 
citizen groups from the entire political spectrum share a common need 
for access to a meaningful democratic process. The GATT/NAFTA 
implementing legislation closed access to the democratic process.
  Support our amendment. Support your hometown's constitutional right 
to legislate on important matters. Support Holocaust victim 
compensation law. Vote ``yes'' on Kucinich/Sanders/Ros-Lehtinen/
DeFazio/ Stearns.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich 
amendment.
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of any 
of the funds appropriated by this bill to challenge a State law on the 
grounds that it is inconsistent with NAFTA or the Uruguay Round 
Agreements.
  Let there be no mistake. This is an anti-trade, anti-export amendment 
that would have the effect of encouraging States to enact 
discriminatory statutes in violation of international trade agreements. 
By denying the Federal Government the constitutional authority to 
regulate foreign commerce, the amendment would invite trade retaliation 
against U.S. exports.
  In granting Congress the authority ``to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations,'' Article I, section 8 of the Constitution recognizes 
the need for uniformity among the States in the conduct of 
international trade. As Daniel Webster stated, ``The prevailing motive 
was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and 
destructive consequences resulting from legislation of so many States, 
and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.'' In cases where 
there is a conflict between an act of Congress that regulates commerce 
and local or State legislation, Federal law enjoys supremacy.
  In order to encourage uniformity among the States, Congress wrote the 
laws implementing NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements to state 
plainly that it is the exclusive right of the Federal Government to 
challenge State laws on the grounds that they violate international 
trade obligations.
  One thing should be made clear in this debate. The authority to bring 
legal action against the States has never been used during the 50 years 
that the GATT global trading system has been in effect.
  I want to remind my colleagues that Congress established elaborate 
consultation procedures to protect the interests of States in these 
matters, and to ensure that representatives of States play a formal 
role in any international dispute settlement proceeding that concerns 
their laws and practices.
  For those who raise concerns about U.S. sovereignty, I emphasize that 
the statutes implementing NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements also 
state that panel reports under the World Trade Organization dispute 
settlement mechanism or under NAFTA are not binding as a matter of U.S. 
law and cannot form the basis for bringing suit in U.S. courts. In 
fact, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act specifically precludes Federal 
courts from giving WTO panel reports any deference. Thus, in the 
regulation of foreign commerce, Federal law is the ``law of the land,'' 
and neither WTO dispute settlement panels, nor the WTO itself, has any 
power to compel any change in U.S. law or regulation. It is up to the 
United States government to decide how it will respond, if at all, to 
WTO and NAFTA panel reports.

  Yesterday we considered a resolution calling on the European Union to 
bring measures that restrict the exports of U.S. beef and bananas into 
compliance with WTO obligations. The adoption of the Kucinich amendment 
would directly undermine these efforts to get the EU to come into 
compliance with its WTO obligations.
  This is a flawed amendment put forward by those who desire to build 
walls of protection around the United States, while sacrificing the 
benefits of a functioning international trading system for our workers 
and businesses.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise and urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
from the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). No trade 
agreement should undermine the values that we have fought so hard for 
in this country, strong environmental laws, strong health and safety 
laws, support for human rights. All of these issues have been fought at 
the State and at the local level through debate, through struggle over 
the years, and no international organization ought to be able to come 
in and just shut that off without having folks be able to participate.
  Now, some of these agreements are being used to strip away these very 
important local and State laws that I just mentioned and that the 
gentleman from Ohio so eloquently illustrated.
  What is worse is that the State and the local governments, which are 
not even at the table when these trade deals are negotiated, are the 
targets of these efforts. We see threats being made against local 
sanctions laws, environmental laws, consumer protection laws and Buy 
American laws, and in States and communities across the country, local 
initiatives to sanction the regimes in Burma and Nigeria are being 
undermined. I think it is important to remember that in the 1980s these 
same local efforts contributed greatly to the ending of apartheid in 
South Africa and the eventual freeing of Nelson Mandela. We will lose 
that economic leverage by letting trade deals deny communities their 
voice on human rights and democracy.

[[Page H7279]]

  Ultimately we must make sure that our trade agreements do not 
undermine the ability of our States and communities to protect 
consumers, to support workers and to protect human rights. But today at 
the very least, we can protect the rights of States and communities and 
afford them the due process that we advocate when we come to this floor 
every day.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kucinich 
amendment. It is an important amendment. If you value what your local 
officials and your State officials do, if you value devolution which we 
talk about on this floor often, if you value local control, if you 
value what is important at the heart of democracy, the local level, 
please vote for this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and I 
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership 
and his hard work on garnering bipartisan support on this very critical 
and important item.
  The message that this amendment serves to underscore is that 
diplomacy does not mean surrender. In our eagerness to expand and grow 
through increased global trade, we must be careful about the 
concessions that we make. We must be careful not to sacrifice U.S. 
sovereignty. We must be careful not to sacrifice domestic interest and 
our American principles in exchange for foreign commitments that are 
ephemeral at best. We must not allow foreign entities and international 
tribunals the authority to challenge and to rival the U.S. 
constitutional framework by doing away with local, State and tribal 
laws, nor must we allow them to rule on what constitutes American 
domestic and national security interests. Unfortunately, this is 
precisely what the World Trade Organization is doing.
  Through the various agreements under the jurisdiction of the WTO, no 
less than seven principles that create the constitutional foundation 
for the role of States as laboratories of democracies, as former 
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once said, are in jeopardy. Several 
doctrines which the Supreme Court has recognized governing the 
stewardship of property and natural resources are directly affected. 
Even free speech in the form of consumer choice campaigns is being 
threatened as eco-labels, nutrition labels and disclosure of child 
labor are open to challenges under WTO mandates of uniformity. The WTO 
threatens such laws as the Burma selective purchase laws which limit 
municipal tax dollars from going to the military regime in Burma 
through companies that do business in Burma. It undermines and 
challenges the use of sanctions at all levels of our government.
  According to the Georgetown University Law Center, this also has a 
profound implication for the future of hundreds of treaties that have 
yet to develop meaningful enforcement tools.

                              {time}  2230

  At immediate risk are the sanctions laws the City of New York and the 
States of California and New Jersey are considering against Swiss banks 
that have held assets stolen by the Nazis from Holocaust victims many 
years ago. Switzerland has already given public notice of its intent to 
get a ruling from the WTO. The WTO expects us to forget the price that 
these Holocaust victims have paid, forget fairness and justice, ignore 
that the Swiss are protecting the rights of the barbaric and brutal 
Nazi criminals and denying the rights of Holocaust victims.
  Is this what we want to defend? Are principles and beliefs that are 
the rubric of American society to be held hostage by the WTO? The 
answer, of course, must be a resounding no.
  This amendment insures that the ultimate fate of subnational policies 
and laws are decided by the American political system and not by 
foreign bureaucrats.
  Do not be fooled by opponents of this amendment. The Kucinich-
Sanders-Ros-Lehtinen-DeFazio-Stearns amendment does not preclude 
constitutional challenges to State and local laws. It does, however, 
prevent the use of taxpayer funds for legal actions which are 
essentially carrying out the WTO rules.
  For these and numerous others, Mr. Chairman, we must support this 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to render their support and vote in 
favor of the Kucinich-Sanders-Ros-Lehtinen-DeFazio-Stearns amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a number of speakers on 
this important matter on both sides.
  In the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could talk 
about the possibility of capping the debate at, say, 20 minutes, 10 for 
each side, or some other figure. I am trying to find something that we 
can agree upon to somewhat cut off debate at some reasonable hour.
  If 20 minutes is too little, perhaps the sponsor would have a better 
idea?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that Members have 
been waiting here for many hours. This is an issue of enormous 
consequence. There are a lot of speakers who would like to speak.
  So I do appreciate, I think we appreciate, the gentleman's wanting to 
move this long, but a lot of people have waited a long time to give 
their thoughts on this issue.
  Mr. ROGERS. Could we agree on, say, a 30-minute total with 15 minutes 
per side?
  Mr. SANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I really would like to, 
but we have too many people who have waited a long time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which brings 
progressives and conservatives together and a lot of people in between, 
and let me briefly state what this amendment is not about.
  This amendment does not deal with our absurd trade policy which is 
currently running up a $200 billion deficit, it is costing us millions 
of jobs and is lowering the standard of American workers. This 
amendment does not deal with that.
  But what this amendment does deal with, which is equally important, 
is the issue of democracy and national sovereignty and the right of the 
American people through their local and State elected bodies to make 
legislation which is in their own best interests.
  The Members of Congress who are cosponsoring this legislation, 
progressives and conservatives, disagree on a lot of things, but what 
we do not disagree about is that the American people in their cities 
and their towns and their States have the right to make decisions which 
affect their own best interests and have the right not to be overridden 
by a secretive trade organization in Geneva, the World Trade 
Organization.
  Mr. Chairman, for many of us trade is important. We agree trade is 
important. But it is not more important than human rights or social 
justice, and it is not more important than the freedom of the American 
people to exercise their constitutional right to speak out for justice 
or to protect the environment or to protect the food that we eat or the 
quality of agriculture in our areas.
  Let me give my colleagues a few examples of why this amendment is 
important:
  Recently in Annapolis, Maryland, the legislature in Maryland was 
discussing a serious way to deal with the military dictatorship in 
Nigeria, and they had a guest at their hearings, and that guest was 
from the State Department who told them that he thought it would not be 
in their best interests or even legal for them to go forward under GATT 
law to protest and develop legislation in opposition to the military 
dictatorship in Nigeria.
  What is terribly important to understand is that in the 1960s and in 
the 1970s communities from all over this country came together to speak 
out against apartheid, and let me quote from what Martin Luther King, 
Jr., said in 1965 about what was going on in South Africa and how we 
could oppose it. This is what he said, and I quote:

       We are in an era in which the issue of human rights is the 
     essential question confronting all nations. With respect to 
     South Africa our protest is so muted and peripheral while our 
     trade and investments substantially stimulate their economy 
     to greater

[[Page H7280]]

     heights. We pat South Africa on the wrist, we give them 
     massive support through American investment in motor and 
     rubber industries. Now is the chance for millions of people 
     to personally give expression to their abhorrence of the 
     world's worst racism. We therefore ask all men of goodwill to 
     take action against apartheid in the following manner. Listen 
     up. Urge your government to support economic sanctions. Don't 
     trade or invest in South Africa until an effective 
     international quarantine of apartheid is established.

  The fact of the matter is, if apartheid existed in a country today, 
or if another Hitler came to power, it would be impossible for the 
State of Vermont or the State of California to develop economic 
sanctions to say that companies that invest in those countries could 
not do business with the State government of Vermont or California or 
Massachusetts. That seems to me absolutely absurd.
  Let me quote from a dear colleague that was sent out by my good 
friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and they say in opposition to this amendment, 
quote:
  ``Multinational companies are being forced to make costly choices 
between giving up lucrative contracts with government agencies or 
foregoing business in some of the world's most promising markets.''
  Yes, that is exactly what we want. If colleagues want to do business 
with apartheid, if they want to do business with a military 
dictatorship, then the people of Vermont and the people of California 
and cities and towns all over this country do have a right to say to 
those companies:
  ``You have to make a choice because we believe that human rights is 
more important.''
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of free trade and against the 
ad hoc proliferation of State and local trade sanctions being imposed 
throughout the United States, and I strongly oppose the Kucinich-
Sanders amendment, which is designed to protect such sanctions from 
Federal challenge and would in effect promote free-lance foreign policy 
making at the State and local level.
  I thought that is what we got elected to do, was that the Congress 
and the President make foreign policy. But apparently, because of this 
amendment, it means that my home city of Findlay, Ohio, and the city 
council therein could have a foreign policy. I thought we settled that 
many, many years ago in this country. Denying contracts to American 
firms with business commitments in Tibet, Burma or Nigeria may be at 
first glance on the cutting edge of political correctness, but the real 
and immediate effect is to punish local businesses who have no control 
over events in foreign countries.
  I would say to my friend from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) that those 
companies who are trying to find markets overseas who employ his 
constituents and my constituents are much more concerned with not only 
making a profit but employing people than they are having the City of 
Montpelier, Vermont, or Findlay, Ohio, making foreign policy, and I 
would say to my friend, and I may have time to yield at the end, and I 
will be glad to do so if I have, but that is really the issue here, 
whether in fact the Congress of the United States and the President of 
the United States have the ability to make foreign policy or we are 
going to let 50 States and Lord knows how many communities throughout 
this country make foreign policy. The imposition of State and local 
sanctions has become almost a fad which will do more harm than good no 
matter how well-intentioned.
  Let me read an editorial in the San Francisco Examiner, and the 
language suggests that, quote, at the city's current rate of 
sanctioning it would soon be able to do business only with companies 
who limited their international work to Monaco and Iceland, end quote.
  So the San Francisco Examiner, not exactly a conservative newspaper, 
I think really hit the nail on the head. State and local sanctions are 
protectionist, they are anti-trade and may even be unconstitutional. As 
a matter of fact, I would submit they are unconstitutional. These laws 
are not always applied consistently and often send mixed signals of the 
U.S. intent.
  Think for a moment. Sanctions could be potentially imposed by 50 
States and thousands of municipalities. This could raise serious 
questions among our trading partners as to the stability and 
predictability of U.S. business relations. American values and business 
practices are best advanced through engagement, not by isolating us or 
angering allies through the threatened use of secondary boycotts. 
Furthermore, when faced with a mandatory choice businesses may abandon 
the local government market in favor of the global market which only 
harms local distributors of the boycotted companies.
  The plain facts are that State and local sanctions undermine the 
unity of U.S. foreign policy and make the U.S. less credible and 
effective in economic negotiations. That is why the Clinton State 
Department opposes this amendment. That is why the U.S. Trade 
Representative also opposes this amendment. State and local sanctions 
are counterproductive, ineffective and frustrate cooperation with U.S. 
trading partners who frequently view them as a violation of U.S. 
international commitments.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, in closing let me quote from our distinguished 
U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, who has done a superb 
job in her tenure at USTR. She says about the Kucinich, et al. 
amendment:

       This amendment is unnecessary and ill advised. The 
     amendment appears to be founded on a faulty premise. Global 
     trade rules have been in effect now for over 50 years. 
     Despite scores of panel reports over the past decades, the 
     Federal Government has never, has never brought suit or even 
     threatened suit to enforce a panel report against a State or 
     local government.

  She closes with this paragraph:

       Over the past 5 years fully one-third of U.S. economic 
     growth has been tied to our dynamic export sector. American 
     workers and companies depend on open markets around the 
     world. Congress and the administration have worked very hard 
     over many decades to put trade rules in place that open those 
     markets and to keep them open through effective dispute 
     settlement procedures. The United States is by far the most 
     frequent user of international dispute settlement mechanisms. 
     They have benefitted U.S. workers and industries across a 
     wide range of sectors and were put in place at U.S. 
     insistence with our sovereignty concerns fully in mind. No 
     change in U.S. law is needed to ensure that this remains the 
     case.

  Signed Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. Trade Representative.
  That really says it all, and this really comes down to the question 
of whether the Congress of the United States in our responsibilities to 
help create foreign policy and trade policy as well as the 
administration is going to be trumped by some city council somewhere 
out in the Midwest that I would submit does not have nearly the amount 
of information available that we do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of trying to preserve time 
and preserve everyone's right to speak I think we have general 
agreement on limiting time.
  I would like to, with that in mind, propose a unanimous consent that 
all debate on the amendment be completed after 30 minutes equally 
divided between the two sides, the gentleman from Ohio controlling his 
side, the gentleman from Arizona, on the committee, controlling the 
other side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman from Kentucky please restate?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the proposal is that the debate be 
concluded in 30 minutes, divided 15 a side, the gentleman from Ohio 
controlling his side, the gentleman from Arizona controlling this side.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

                              {time}  2245

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

[[Page H7281]]

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been told by the other side that it is 
absolutely unnecessary to have this amendment because the United States 
Government has never used the power of the courts to preempt State and 
local laws, and it will never do that.
  Well, if that is the case, then why do they not just accept the 
amendment? This only limits the expenditure of funds for the Federal 
Government to take local and State governments to court when their laws 
are found to be inconsistent with NAFTA and GATT, international trade 
agreements, not the Constitution of the United States.
  Of course the Federal Government can sue if it violates the 
Constitution of the United States, but only in the case where their 
local laws, their local preference, violates the terms of an 
international trade agreement, which will be decided by secret 
tribunals overseas. If that is what is before us, they should then 
accept the amendment.
  Further, we have the statement in 1986 of the Justice Department 
under President Ronald Reagan concluding that State and local laws and 
anti-apartheid laws were constitutional under the market participation 
doctrine. They go on to say, the Supreme Court has distinguished, quite 
properly, between the exercise of proprietary powers and regulatory 
powers. The Court has shielded proprietary actions from the strictures 
of the Commerce Clause. State divestment statutes represent, we 
believe, an exercise of proprietary power.
  That goes to the arguments of the gentleman earlier. These are 
constitutional. This is what our country is all about, it is what it is 
founded on. Our local and State jurisdictions should be able to express 
their values in expending the dollars of their taxpayers. That is what 
this is about.
  The largest city in my State, Portland, has imposed restrictions on 
purchases regarding Burma because of the drug smuggling from Burma, 
because of the oppression in Burma, because of the fact that they had 
an election which was won by an 80 percent margin and they refused to 
recognize it. They are saying something must be done.
  We have a bunch of people in the White House, and apparently even 
here, unwilling to take stern action against Burma, but at least a few 
cities will stand up for the rights of those people. And that is the 
way it should be. We should not be threatening them because they are 
saying you are violating the WTO. You know, those butchers running 
Myanmar are in fact compliant with WTO, and you cannot do that to them. 
They are compliant.
  That is absurd. What we need to do here tonight is adopt this 
amendment and just say in one case and one case only the Federal 
Government cannot spend these funds. But if it is unconstitutional, 
fine, they can go to court. But if it is to take a local jurisdiction 
to court merely because the bureaucrats at the WTO or the bureaucrats 
who are making the decisions in NAFTA, or Charlene Barshefsky, a former 
foreign agent, now our Trade Representative, says so, that is not the 
way this country should be run.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who has been a strong advocate 
of expanded trade opportunities.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine State and local 
governments saying we really do not like these international postal 
agreements, so we are going to enact a community postal agreement, or 
perhaps a statewide one; or we think there is an infringement on our 
sovereignty with the international air space agreements because those 
airplanes fly over our State, and therefore we think that State and 
local governments should have the right to enact their own type of 
agreements dealing with these subjects?
  Well, we are not under the Articles of Confederation, we are under 
the United States Constitution, and it was the Constitution that 
specifically gave exclusive power to the United States Government, the 
national government, to deal with issues of foreign policy and 
especially international trade.
  What we have going on in this country, for example, Berkeley City 
Council added two more oil companies to its boycott list. The council 
will no longer buy gas from Shell and Chevron because it does business 
in Nigeria. Since Berkeley has already banned ARCO, Unocal, Mobil and 
Texaco for doing business in Burma and considered Exxon stained by the 
Valdez spill, the town is running out of options.
  So the issue is not WTO, but simply does the Federal Government or 
the State and local governments have jurisdiction over international 
trade policy? We cannot have an international trade policy promulgated 
by this Congress and then be preempted by 50 States and hundreds of 
local communities. It simply would not make sense. That is the issue 
here.
  One of the reasons our Founding Fathers moved to adopt the U.S. 
Constitution in 1779 was that even the States among themselves had 
their own tariffs and their own foreign policies.
  So I would urge Members this evening to vote against this amendment 
and to say, look, if we want to have a focused international policy, 
Congress is the place where the issue of Burma should be debated, and 
it is; Congress is the place where the issue of Nazi gold should be 
debated, and it is, in the Committee on International Relations, and 
the sanctions were requested here in this body. All these issues deal 
with the United States Congress and the authority that we have here. We 
cannot be preempted by 50 states going their own way.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), I do not think 
they have read the amendment. When they quote Madam Barshefsky, in 
which she said no panel proceedings have ever been brought against any 
State or municipal law or regulation, well, perfect, that is what we 
are talking about.
  That is what this amendment is. It is just saying that no State or 
local laws will be challenged by the Federal Government, just what she 
said. It fits in perfectly with our amendment, which states basically 
that you cannot use Federal funds to challenge State and local 
governments.
  So, I do not know, they are talking about the Constitution, they are 
talking about all these mishmash laws all around our 50 States. They 
obviously have not read the amendment. We are agreeing with Madam 
Barshefsky, who basically said that no Federal funds will go towards 
such challenges. So our amendment matches basically what the 
traditional recognition is by Barshefsky and everybody else. All we are 
saying is let us codify it today.
  A lot of people say, well, you know, what are we talking about? The 
States and local communities are not being impacted. No? In my State of 
Florida, Venezuela brought legal action against Florida under the 
auspices of the WTO for Florida's oil refinery standards. Now, Florida 
maintains a very clean air standard to reduce pollution, but Venezuela 
challenged that standard because the oil produced in Venezuela could 
not meet the Florida standard. Venezuela was successful, and Florida is 
now forced to reduce their environmental standards to accommodate the 
WTO decision.
  Do you think that is right? Some of the other things that have been 
mentioned, the Helms-Burton Act which enacted trade sanctions against 
Cuba was challenged by the European Community at the World Trade 
Organization.
  Switzerland has indicated that they will bring an action to the WTO 
against New York City, California and New Jersey for their sanction 
laws against Swiss banks that held assets stolen by Nazi Germany from 
the Holocaust victims for over 40 years. Buy-American provisions in 
numerous States and localities.
  The question before us tonight is how can international agreements go 
in, overturning laws passed by States and localities that have not been 
ratified by anybody other than the World Trade Organizations? I 
certainly would not necessarily endorse every law passed by the City of 
Berkeley, California, or San Francisco, but are not the laws

[[Page H7282]]

these localities pass the essence of democracy? And as long as States 
and localities do not violate the U.S. Constitution, their local laws 
should be defended by the Federal Government and not challenged and 
thrown out by the World Trade Organization.
  So the bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, 
and it is a perfect amendment that matches with Ambassador Barshefsky, 
that no government will file against State and local governments, and 
no Federal funds can be used.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and let us move 
forward.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate. I was over in my office 
listening to it and decided I should come over and just add my voice. I 
think it is probably a little confusing to people listening because we 
are talking about the Constitution and talking about all these trade 
agreements.
  Basically this is just a back-door attempt at protectionism. My good 
friend from Ohio, from Cleveland, has heavy machinery in his district 
he wants to export, he has high-tech goods, he has chemicals. My friend 
from Florida who just spoke has orange juice he wants to send over to 
the Europeans, the best orange juice in the world. We want those 
markets to be open.
  If we were to pass this amendment tonight, and if we were to take 
this road in trade which says basically, as my friend just said, that 
Berkeley, California, can decide whether oranges are going to go from 
Florida to the European countries, we will in fact have the kind of 
protectionism and break down the kind of standards that we have set up 
under the World Trade Organization and under the GATT.
  Why? Because what the Europeans will do who are being discriminated 
against by the policies of Berkeley California, or any other city, is 
they will retaliate against the United States, and they have every 
right to do it under these trade agreements. They would not have the 
right to do it so long as the U.S. follows the rules. But if we do not 
follow the rules and we allow our cities and States to discriminate 
against their products, then they can turn around and discriminate 
against our products, and that is the whole point of these agreements.
  If you do not like the NAFTA agreement, which was passed by this 
Congress when it was under Democratic control, when there was a 
Democrat in the White House, then let us talk about NAFTA. If you do 
not like the WTO, which was passed when President Clinton was in office 
and when the Democrats controlled this Chamber, then let us talk about 
WTO.
  But we have set these things in place so that there is in fact a 
trade regime, that if a European country discriminates against a 
product from Cleveland, Ohio, or Cincinnati, Ohio, or Florida, then 
yes, we as the United States Government can retaliate against that 
European county.
  That is what we are trying to do now with regard to beef hormones, 
with regard to bananas. We sat here on the floor yesterday and all of 
us voted for this great resolution to beat up on the Europeans because 
they have protectionist policies in place, and we insisted that USTR 
make the Europeans fully comply with the WTO decisions which helped the 
United States.
  Yet we stand here tonight and say that is not going to apply to us. 
We should let our cities and our States and our counties decide what 
our trade policy is, and then in turn we are going to allow the 
Europeans to cut off products that are coming from all over this 
country.
  Let me give you one example of what could happen if we allow this 
thing to go through. You could have one city, Cleveland, Ohio, my city 
of Cincinnati, or Berkeley, California, as I said earlier, put in a 
place a policy that provides discrimination against some product from 
some company that happens to be European based. The Europeans could 
then discriminate against a product that does not affect just Berkley, 
California, or Cleveland, Ohio, or Cincinnati, Ohio, but affects this 
entire country and affects jobs here in the United States.
  One-third of the growth of this wonderful economic situation we find 
ourselves in today is due to exports. If you want to pull up the 
ladder, fine, let us talk about that. But let us not go around this 
backdoor way and say we are not going to have a national trade policy, 
we are going to have a city trade policy or a county trade policy or a 
State trade policy, which in turn will allow our trading partners who 
have agreed to the WTO, who have agreed to NAFTA, to in turn 
discriminate against our products and hurt all Americans.
  So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this. I think we should have more 
honest discussion about it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Kucinich amendment. I ask my colleagues, what with the intimidation of 
the WTO rules and upcoming Federal lawsuits, what State or local 
governments will be able to use procurement as instruments for 
influencing public policy?
  If the State and local governments had been bound by such trade rules 
when many of us joined with the people of South Africa in their 
struggle for freedom, Nelson Mandela might still be in jail. We would 
not have been able to use local sanctions as weapons against apartheid 
in South Africa.
  I believe one of the reasons this country remains free is the ability 
for local people to have initiatives, started at the bottom, 
implemented by ordinary people, and represented by local officials who 
oftentimes are closest to them.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a member of the Chicago City Council, 
alderman of the 29th Ward, I fought for selective contracting policies. 
I fought for them because the people I represented firmly believed that 
their local government and businesses should not be doing business with 
the apartheid regime in South Africa.
  In the mid-1980s, the city of Chicago passed a selective contracting 
policy, along with 50 other cities, five other States, and 14 counties 
that passed similar ordinances. I, as a local elected official, stood 
with my constituents, who were courageous enough to organize against 
the injustices in South Africa. This city ordnance was passed as a 
monument to the personal undertaking and fearless conviction that the 
people in my community have.
  I hope not to see the day when the Federal Government can overturn 
this kind of conviction. This was our way, the people's way of 
supporting the struggle that was led by the people at the bottom, at 
the very local level of being.
  Why is it that every time there is conflict between the people and 
major corporations, that somehow or another the people get shut out, 
left at the bottom? There is no fear in a policy like this. All that it 
really says is let the people decide. That is the democratic way. That 
is the American way. That is why I support the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful to bring this debate down 
to Earth. The fact of it is, no Nation on the face of this Earth uses 
the WTO dispute resolutions more than the United States does. No Nation 
wins more battles before the WTO than the United States does. We cannot 
have it both ways. We cannot have a case where, if we win with the WTO, 
we say, enforce the agreement; if someone else wins from another 
country, we say, trash it. Forget about it. It means nothing. Certainly 
we do not want it to mean anything in any jurisdiction that any of us 
have anything to do with.
  The fact of it is, this debate has already taken place on this floor. 
It took place when we did the Uruguay Round some few years ago. That 
established, as if it was not already well-established, that Federal 
and international

[[Page H7283]]

law already assures that neither the WTO dispute panels nor the WTO 
itself have any capacity to compel THE U.S., our U.S. government, to 
change its laws or change the regulations.
  More specifically, only the United States can decide how it will 
respond, if it does at all, to panel reports. Only the U.S. Congress 
can change U.S. laws. Trade panel reports are not binding as a matter 
of U.S. law, and cannot form the basis for bringing suit in U.S. 
courts. If a suit is brought in U.S. courts, it will not because of a 
trade panel dispute resolution matter, it will be because the court 
otherwise has jurisdiction.
  Every executive agency, including the office of USTR, is charged with 
upholding U.S. laws and defending them against challenges. The fears 
about the Federal Government seeking to sue State governments to comply 
with international dispute panels is to me totally without merit.
  The Kucinich amendment is unnecessary. I think it creates an issue 
where there is none. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I just want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on 
this amendment. I think that the debate tonight is really getting off 
target. There has been talk about our States wanting to get more power 
in foreign affairs. That is how this debate has been steered. That is 
not what this is about. It is not about our States wanting foreign 
powers, this is about foreign powers wanting to take away our States' 
rights.
  It has been said tonight also, in the agreement we cannot find where 
in fact this interferes with our States' rights or our States' laws. 
That is not true, because when the WTO rules against our States and 
local laws, the Federal Government is obligated to pursue every 
measure, including bringing a legal challenge in Federal court to 
compel our local governments to repeal that law. That is the use of 
force to change our laws. This amendment simply prohibits any 
taxpayers' dollars to be used by the Federal Government in the legal 
battles against State and local laws.
  It was also mentioned when we have the ability to go to WTO, we do 
it. Ask the steel workers recently about Hamboo in Korea. They had to 
beg this government to try to do something, with thousands of 
signatures. We do not win when it comes to this issue for the working 
people. We only win if an amendment like this is passed.
  This amendment sends a message that the American people do not want 
to transfer power and responsibility from their elected representatives 
to unelected trade bureaucrats at the WTO in Geneva. Why do Members 
think fast track went down in this Chamber? Because the American people 
are sick and tired of giving up our States' rights. Our veterans did 
not go and fight and die so unelected bureaucrats decide for us in some 
foreign agreement what our laws are going to be in this country.
  It is time to wake up. I am deeply disturbed by the power these 
international trade organizations have acquired to change our laws. In 
order to protect American jobs, we need an amendment like this. This is 
simply fair to American workers, and it is fair to our States' rights. 
I urge support of the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, would all of the Members for just a minute 
return with me to 1770? This is not the District of Columbia, it 
belongs to the State of Maryland. We operate under the Articles of 
Confederation, and a ship that moves along the Potomac stops in 
Maryland and has a set of rules. It crosses the river, and it has an 
entirely different set of rules, because the States set the rules.
  The gentleman who spoke earlier said, let the people decide. Excuse 
me? They did, in 1789. They said, ``We, the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect union.'' We all agreed to form 
a more perfect union. Part of those rules are, in Article I, Section 8, 
``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations and among the several States.''
  When we deal with foreign nations in Article II, it is done by 
treaties. It says, ``The President shall have power, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties.'' We are dealing 
with an international organization which the United States relates to 
through treaty. The WTO cannot make the United States do anything the 
United States, or a subunit, does not want to do.
  Let us look at the tenth amendment: ``The powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States 
are reserved respectively to the people.'' Foreign relations by treaty, 
the people of the United States said belong to the Nation.
  These Members are talking about returning to the Articles of 
Confederation, and I cannot believe the gentleman from Vermont quoted a 
number of States, including the author of this amendment, that had 
people fight and die to preserve this Union.
  Take a look at the Constitution, I say to the Members, if they have 
not looked at it recently. What they are advocating is the failure to 
honor the specific language of Article I, Article II, and the tenth 
amendment. The preamble is not binding, but it starts out, ``We, the 
people.'' The decision was made a long time ago. This is an absolutely 
ridiculous amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, on June 16 this House passed a bill to 
present a Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela. The long story, 
to bring us to a point where this body would vote a Congressional Gold 
Medal to Nelson Mandela, began with Massachusetts University's cutting 
off their investment in South Africa; with the State of Massachusetts 
passing a State law prohibiting any contacts with the State of South 
Africa.

                              {time}  2310

  And slowly but surely the international community heard that message, 
and slowly but surely the international community tightened the reins 
around South Africa so that Nelson Mandela could become the elected 
president of that country. It began, though, in Massachusetts.
  Another great individual, another winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 
languished for 5 years under House arrest in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, 
leader of the Burmese people's democracy movement, placed under arrest 
because she had the temerity to win 82 percent of the vote in a 
democratic election. The State of Massachusetts has passed a law saying 
that we do not want to have business relationships with the country of 
Burma.
  Recently, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from House arrest, but the 
military leaders of Burma still tightly control her movements. And only 
if we continue to keep the pressure on Burma will Aung San Suu Kyi one 
day address a joint session of Congress.
  Now, the World Trade Organization believes that we should not in 
Massachusetts be able to take action against Burma. In Massachusetts. I 
am in favor of GATT. I am in favor of NAFTA. I am in favor of free 
trade and global economic competition. The World Trade Organization 
serves its purpose when it prevents a company from using laws to stifle 
competition. The World Trade Organization serves its purpose when it 
prevents a state from stifling competition. But it does not serve our 
purposes when it denies the freedom of people in countries around the 
world from being protected by the individual actions of States within 
our Nation.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules 
and a strong advocate of expanded trade opportunities.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to 
me, and I have been told by my dear colleague from Cincinnati that the 
issue of South Africa has been raised throughout this debate. We need 
to realize that every bit of action that was

[[Page H7284]]

taken from the United States on the issue of South Africa was taken by 
the United States Government, as it was outlined very clearly in the 
arguments provided by my friend from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important to recognize what it is that the 
authors of this amendment hate. They hate the international economy. 
They hate the rules-based trading system, which has a very simple and 
basic goal. Why was it back in 1947 that the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade was established and expanded to the World Trade 
Organization today? Why? It was designed to diminish tariff barriers. 
That is the very simple goal of the WTO.
  And while we hear people argue this time and time again, it is 
important for us to recognize that the WTO cannot change a single law 
here in the United States. So what we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is we 
need to realize that our goals are simple: They are to break down 
barriers, to find new opportunities for U.S. products and services 
around the world and, very importantly, to maintain and expand the 
standard of living that we enjoy in the United States, which is as 
great as any country on the face of the earth. Why? Because the world 
has access to our consumer market.
  Defeat the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair how much time remains 
on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 2 minutes 
remaining and has the right to close.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I compliment the advocates of this amendment on the clever way it has 
been crafted.
  It appeals to a broader base of members who support states' rights 
and are sensitive to the issues of federalism and preserving the 10th 
Amendment.
  Who in their right mind wants to fund the Justice Department at the 
behest of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to intervene in the courts 
to overturn and repeal states laws or local ordinances?
  That, however, is not the case.
  First, the World Trade organization, and its dispute resolution 
panels, have no power to compel the U.S. to change Federal, State or 
local laws and regulations; and,
  Second, state and local governments that engage in sanctions on 
foreign governments and their nations are clearly overstepping their 
authority under the Constitution and engaging in U.S. foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the WTO has no authority in the United States.
  In fact, the federal law implementing the Uruguay Round specifically 
precludes U.S. federal courts from giving WTO panel reports any 
deference.
  The truth is that if a WTO panel determines that a U.S. state law 
violates the WTO Agreement, the federal government is not obligated to 
do anything.
  Under the Uruguay Round, U.S. sovereignty is actually strengthened by 
granting the United States a number of options that help contain the 
dispute and protects against the imposition of unilateral sanctions or 
the initiation of a destructive trade war.
  Under the Uruguay Round, the U.S. government can elect to take no 
action, it can negotiate a mutually acceptable compensation, it can 
accept the suspension of trade concessions by the prevailing party, or 
it can intervene in federal court to overturn or nullify the disputed 
law.
  In the past 50 years that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
has been in effect, the federal government has never brought a court 
action to repeal or nullify a state law.
  Now let me comment on my second point.
  When a local or state government seeks to impose trade sanctions on 
foreign governments, they are going beyond their constitutional 
authority and engaging in foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong advocate of protecting the rights of 
state and local governments.
  I was a lead sponsor of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act that protects 
state and local governments against the imposition of unfunded federal 
mandates, laws where we mandate that state and local governments 
compliance without providing the funds to pay for their implementation.
  I also just voted in support of an amendment offered by my colleague 
Jim Kolbe banning federal funds to implement executive order 13083.
  This executive order on federalism was a mistake and is opposed by 
all state and local elected officials on a bipartisan basis.
  But just as we should respect and protect state and local authority, 
we should protect and respect federal authority and not undermine the 
ability of the U.S. government to conduct U.S. trade and foreign 
policy.
  The two local laws that have given impetus to this amendment and may 
come before a WTO dispute panel are the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' 
procurement policy that penalizes business, U.S. and foreign, that do 
business with Burma and New York's sanctions on Swiss banks that fail 
to cooperate with victims of the Holocaust.
  I can sympathize and perhaps even support the objectives of both New 
York and Massachusetts.
  But the proper place to establish these policies is at the federal 
level here in Congress and in the executive branch, not at the state or 
local level.
  If Congress feels as strongly as Massachusetts and New York feel 
about human rights abuses in Burma or the lack of cooperation Swiss 
banks have given Holocaust victims, then let us debate the merits of 
trade sanctions or other action targeted against Burma and Switzerland.
  The real issue isn't whether you oppose human rights violations or 
sympathize with Holocaust victims, the real issue is whether you think 
the state and local governments should set this nation's foreign policy 
and trade agenda.
  Oppose the Kucinich-Sanders amendment and demonstrate your respect 
for what our Founding Fathers intended.
  Preserve the right of Congress to establish U.S. trade and foreign 
policy.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment. What a radical notion, a radical notion, that the 
people we represent might decide that they do not want to procure in 
local government articles made with slave labor or made with child 
labor, or that they would want to keep their food clear of illegal 
pesticides and toxic materials as the State of California has done.
  What a terrible, radical notion to scare the opponents of this 
amendment. The people that we represent would band together and decide 
these decisions and make these decisions. They were far ahead of the 
Federal Government on the issue of South Africa. If the World Trade 
Organization was around then, Nelson Mandela would never be out of 
prison.
  We have to encourage our citizens to take these actions to protect 
their activities, to protect their food supply and to protect human 
rights.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment today. We have 
heard phrases like it will change our laws, as though somehow the U.S. 
sovereignty was at stake, but we know that is not the case. United 
States sovereignty is quite intact here.
  Let us just look for a moment at what really happens under the WTO or 
the NAFTA if there is a ruling against us because some State has taken 
or local government has taken some kind of action.
  The United States can choose to do absolutely nothing. We can accept 
the consequences of it, and then the consequences would be that another 
government can take, under the NAFTA or the WTO, action against us, can 
suspend some of the trading rights that they have granted, you say, 
because some local government has decided to do the same.
  So the United States can do nothing, or we can accept it. We can 
abide by it but we can still do nothing about the local government. We 
can negotiate a compensation package where we have to pay compensation 
to the other country but we still have to do nothing.
  The fact of the matter is, so far it has never been used by the 
United States, but let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we better 
keep this arrow in our quiver.
  What if, for example, tomorrow the State of California were to say 
they do not like Japan and they were to ban all trade with Japan? The 
hundreds of billions of dollars that would be involved here would mean 
a massive tax on the rest of us to compensate for that.
  Now, we have heard about Nelson Mandela and South Africa. The fact 
is,

[[Page H7285]]

that was coordinated and done by this Congress, by the United States 
Government acting in concert with other countries. It was not done by 
the State of Massachusetts. It was not because of some local government 
doing it. It was the fact that this Congress took the steps and our 
executive branch got the efforts of other countries in step with us to 
make sure that we had this kind of action.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make it very clear I am a strong advocate 
of States' rights. I offered an amendment earlier on that subject. 
Article III, section 8 says the power to regulate foreign commerce and 
the commerce between States shall belong to the Federal Government. It 
is right here in the Constitution. If ever anybody would read the 
Constitution, it would be very clear that States' rights works two 
ways, and the Federal Government has the right to regulate this 
commerce.
  We should vote ``no'' on this to maintain the ability of the United 
States to trade and to regulate commerce. Vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich 
amendment. I appreciate the concerns expressed by some opponents of 
this legislation that it could undermine the authority of the federal 
government to represent the United States on foreign policy and trade 
matters. My vote today is not intended to seek to undermine that 
authority; rather, it represents my belief that we must have a more 
activist approach to U.S. foreign and trade policy, one that is more 
responsive to the concerns of localities, and one that better reflects 
the values and priorities of the American people.
  Clearly, states and localities should not make foreign policy for our 
federal government, or take actions that undermine the U.S. 
government's policies. However, in cases where the federal government 
has failed to assert our fundamental values of freedom, democracy and 
human rights internationally, these entities have often taken actions 
that have spurred the federal government to assert U.S. leadership. The 
most dramatic example of this in recent memory is that of South Africa, 
where the conviction of individuals in universities, localities and 
other organizations generated a grassroots movement that propelled our 
government to impose comprehensive sanctions against the apartheid 
regime there. This in turn inspired an international effort that 
contributed to the downfall of South Africa's apartheid government.
  All of our nation's democratic institutions should have the 
opportunity to participate in efforts to promote positive change, both 
at home and abroad. Unfortunately, too often state and local entities 
feel that their voices are not heard as the federal government 
formulates policies that affect all Americans. To remedy this 
situation, we need a process that is more responsive to the legitimate 
concerns of localities. This amendment emphasizes the importance of 
giving localities the ability to voice these concerns, and would 
promote constructive dialogue rather than confrontation between them 
and the federal government on these important issues.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) are 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh); 
amendment No. 49 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 188, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               AYES--240

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders

[[Page H7286]]


     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Moakley
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2339

  Messrs. KIM, McHALE and GANSKE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2340


                Amendment No. 49 Offered By Mr. Kucinich

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is demand for a recorded vote on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 228, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 401]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--228

     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Moakley
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2346

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, and Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support funding for sea 
lamprey control in the Great Lakes.
  For those who are unfamiliar with the sea lamprey, it is an eel-like 
creature--introduced into the Great Lakes by foreign ballast water--
which attaches itself to fish and literally sucks the life out of the 
fish.
  Without proper treatment, this foreign species would severely 
threaten the $4 billion per year Great Lakes fishing industry.
  While the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has made great strides in 
fighting the sea lamprey, infestation in the St. Marys River is 
threatening the lake trout in northern Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.
  More sea lamprey are produced in this river than all of the Great 
Lakes combined. In fact, lamprey levels are rapidly approaching record 
levels in this area, resulting in the death of 54% of all adult lake 
trout.
  The Senate has specifically designated nearly $9.4 million for the 
Great Lakes Fishery Commission for fiscal year 1999. Included in this 
amount is $8.7 million for the Sea Lamprey operations and research 
program and $1 million to combat the sea lamprey infestation in the St. 
Marys River in Michigan.
  We must stop this problem before we reverse the gains that have been 
made over the recent years in fighting the sea lamprey in the Great 
Lakes. It is my hope that the Committee will concur with the Senate on 
these designations during the conference committee.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support to my 
colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, for his hard work in deterring 
juveniles from recklessly and carelessly handling guns.
  In Washington State alone in the 1996-1997 school year, we had 150 
incidents of kids bringing handguns, rifles, or shotguns onto school 
property. Not only is it a crime under Washington State law, but under 
Federal Law it is illegal to have a firearm on school grounds. Yet 
these juveniles are still bringing guns to school and endangering the 
lives of other students.
  For this reason, I am introducing a bill this week with Mr. DeFazio 
to address the problem of guns in school. Rather than mandating new 
state laws or creating more programs that simply do not work, it is our 
intention to establish an incentive program for states to create a 24 
hour cooling off period for students caught with guns. These kids need 
to be faced with the responsibility they bear in picking up a gun

[[Page H7287]]

and possessing it illegally. We cannot allow another Jonesboro 
Arkansas, or Springfield Oregon incident.
  I thank Mr. DeFazio for bringing to the attention of the House and I 
look forward to sponsoring this legislation with him. I also thank 
Chairman Rogers for his willingness to work with us as we try to create 
new ways to discourage violent crime.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 508, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put 
them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro temore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes; I am, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  2350

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the motion 
to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4276, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered; but 
pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, that vote is postponed momentarily so 
the Chair may entertain a unanimous consent request.

                          ____________________