[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 82 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5146-H5162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent today, Monday, 
June 26, 2000, and as a result, missed rollcall votes 322 and 323. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 322 and 
``yes'' on rollcall vote 323.


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 201, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--196

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Archer
     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cook
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Morella
     Ney
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Talent
     Towns
     Vento
     Waxman
     Whitfield

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. PACKARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidable detained in my 
Congressional District earlier today and was unable to vote on several 
amendments to H.R. 4690.
  On the Sanford amendment, rollcall 322, I would have voted ``no.''
  On the Olver amendment, rollcall 323, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On the Hostettler amendment, rollcall 324, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding to me.
  I would like to voice my concern over the state of Federal judicial 
compensation. I believe that judges' salaries are falling below the 
minimum levels that are needed, not only in the interests of fairness, 
but also to ensure the continued quality of the Federal judiciary.
  Over the past 8 years, Federal judges have experienced a 13 percent 
decline in the real value of their salaries. At the same time, their 
workload has remained at high levels. Salaries of Federal judges have 
not just lagged behind the inflation indices.
  As a result, judges' salaries no longer bear a reasonable 
relationship to that of the pool of lawyers from whom candidates for 
judgeships should be drawn. It has been widely reported that the first-
year associates in law firms in metropolitan areas throughout the 
country are now earning $125,000 a year. It is therefore not surprising 
that even second- and third-year associates at most large law firms 
would have to take a pay cut, a pay cut to accept an appointment to the 
Federal bench.
  Public sector salaries may even be more relevant. The general counsel 
of the University of California receives a salary in excess of $250,000 
annually, which is substantially greater than the pay of the Chief 
Justice of the United States.
  The district attorneys of Los Angeles, for example, are paid 
$185,000. All of these salaries far exceed the salary of the United 
States Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, which are 
currently less than $182,000 and $174,000, respectively.
  Additionally, a U.S. District Judge salary is currently only 
$141,300. Increasingly, judges are choosing not to make the financial 
sacrifice to remain

[[Page H5147]]

on the Federal bench. As a result, our Federal judiciary is losing some 
of its most capable and dedicated men and women. Since January, 1993, 
40 Article III judges, judges whose positions are delegated in Article 
III of the U.S. Constitution and serve lifetime appointments subject to 
Senate confirmation, have resigned or retired from the Federal bench. 
Many of these judges have retired to private practice.
  The departure of experienced, seasoned judges undermines the notion 
of lifetime service and weakens our judicial system. If the issue of 
adequate judicial salaries is not soon addressed, I believe there is a 
real risk that the quality of the Federal judiciary, a matter of great 
and justified pride, will be compromised.
  The President of the United States' salary goes up to $400,000 next 
year. Is it not about time the Supreme Court Justices's salaries go up, 
too?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. This 
is an issue that the Judiciary has been struggling with for a number of 
years. It gets worse. It is becoming more widespread. As the number of 
agencies that require professional expertise grows, we hear the same 
problem in connection with the SEC, FCC, the FBI, all agencies that 
hire lawyers and professional experts.
  We have to compete with the private sector, but we do not have the 
resources to match those salaries dollar for dollar, as the gentleman 
has so adequately pointed out. So we will work with the gentleman on 
this issue as we work through the process, hoping we can find some 
solution.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I should have asked for the gavel, because I could not 
believe my ears. My understanding is that the previous gentleman was 
inquiring about the inadequacy of the pay of Federal judges. I remember 
a number of years ago when the same gentleman was very active in seeing 
to it that this House did not provide cost-of-living increases for its 
own employees.
  I would simply say, I admire the gentleman's solicitude for people 
who are already making six figures, but frankly, I would like to see 
the same solicitude for the legislative branch of government, and by 
that, I specifically am thinking of the people who work for us. I am 
not talking about Members, I am talking about our staffs, the people 
who make us look a lot better than we are.
  I find it ironic that a gentleman who was very active in denying us 
that opportunity to compensate our own employees with a cost-of-living 
increase a number of years ago is now very concerned about the pay of 
the highest-paid judges in this country.
  I have nothing against adequate judicial salaries, but I also think 
we have a problem when the average length of stay for a young 
congressional staffer on the Hill is less than 3 years, and I think 
there is a serious problem when the House of Representatives on average 
pays its top legislative staffers $15,000 to $25,000 less on average 
than the United States Senate does. I have forgotten whether it is 
$15,000 or $25,000, so I will supply the exact number for the Record.

                              {time}  2100

  But I just want to say that I share the gentleman's concern about 
adequate reimbursement for judges. I would welcome his concern about 
adequate salaries for the young people in this institution who work 
just as hard as Federal judges for about one-fifth the pay.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me. The gentleman has a very good memory. That was 10 years 
ago that I had that amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I remember. My motto is: ``Forgive and 
remember.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the gentleman remembers 
that like it was yesterday, because it did occur a decade ago. At that 
point the salaries that were provided the staff were going up quite 
substantially and was well above inflation. And since we have had the 
years go on for the last 10 years, we have provided inflationary 
increases for the staff.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply say the 
fact is those salaries are a whole lot less than every other branch of 
government. They still are. And it seems to me that one of the ways for 
people to judge Members of Congress is to judge them by whether or not 
they deal with their staffs the way they would like to be dealt with 
themselves.
  And, certainly, it seems to me that the country would be well served 
if we also had a greater ability to retain congressional employees of 
more experience so that we are not being advised by people who on 
average have been here less than 3 years.


          Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

           TITLE VIII--LEGAL AMNESTY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

       Sec. 801. (a) Section 249 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``1972'' and 
     inserting ``1986''; and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``1972;'' and inserting 
     ``1986;''.
       (b) The table of sections for such Act is amended in the 
     item relating to section 249 by striking ``1972'' and 
     inserting ``1986''.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and a Member 
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I did not have to rise to the floor on this 
issue, because I know if my colleagues understood this issue 
completely, they would immediately move to waive the point of order and 
allow us to proceed to vote on this and pass this amendment.
  In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act authorized the 
legalization of undocumented immigrants, in essence to grante late 
amnesty. This is a nation of immigrants and laws. But, unfortunately, 
the INS promulgated a rule that denied such legalization to the 
immigrants in this group who had briefly left the country to bury a 
loved one or take care of a child, or handle other matters.
  We find that these individuals now live in our country having lived 
18, 20 years, they have mortgages, car payments, and are hard-working 
individuals with young adult children now trying to seek an educational 
opportunity. But yet because of an incorrect interpretation by the INS 
of a regulation, the situation now exists that these individuals, 
hardworking, taxpaying families are not able to adjust their status and 
become citizens or apply for such.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment resolves this in a fair 
and adequate manner so much so that the AFL-CIO has offered a 
resolution in support of legal amnesty, and at the appropriate time I 
will submit their statement for inclusion in the Record.
  I offer another amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would bring an end to a 
long problem. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
authorized the legalization of undocumented immigrants who could prove 
that they had been living in the United States since January 1, 1982.
  Unfortunately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (``INS'') 
promulgated a rule that denied legalization to the immigrants in this 
group who had briefly left the country. INS then refused to accept 
applications from people who had violated this rule.
  But by the time the INS had agreed to modify the rule, the 12-month 
application period had ended and hundreds of thousands of people who 
could have established eligibility for legalization had been turned 
away.
  This amendment would update a provision of the immigration law known 
as ``registry'' by which our government recognizes that it makes sense 
to allow long-time residents, deeply rooted immigrants who are 
contributing

[[Page H5148]]

to our economy to remain here permanently. This amendment would get 
these immigrants out of ``legal limbo.''
  My bill H.R. 4172 ``The Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 1999'' also 
fixes this problem, however the devastation that these families are 
facing because of our inability to seek legal status warrants our 
acting today to correct this injustice. Thank you.

          AFL-CIO'S RESOLUTION SUPPORTING IMMIGRATION AMNESTY

       The AFL-CIO proudly stands on the side of immigrant 
     workers. Throughout the history of this country, immigrants 
     have played an important role in building our nation and its 
     democratic institutions. New arrivals from every continent 
     have contributed their energy, talent, and commitment to 
     making the United States richer and stronger. Likewise, the 
     American union movement has been enriched by the 
     contributions and courage of immigrant workers. Newly 
     arriving workers continue to make indispensable contributions 
     to the strength and growth of our unions. These efforts have 
     created new unions and strengthened and revived others, 
     benefitting all workers, immigrant and native-born alike. It 
     is increasingly clear that if the United States is to have an 
     immigration system that really works, it must be 
     simultaneously orderly, responsible and fair. The policies of 
     both the AFL-CIO and our country must reflect those goals.
       The United States is a nation of laws. This means that the 
     federal government has the sovereign authority and 
     constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits on 
     immigration. It also means that our government has the 
     obligation to enact and enforce laws in ways that respect due 
     process and civil liberties, safeguard public health and 
     safety, and protect the rights and opportunities of workers.
       The AFL-CIO believes the current system of immigration 
     enforcement in the United States is broken and needs to be 
     fixed. Our starting points are simple.
       Undocumented workers and their families make enormous 
     contributions to their communities and workplaces and should 
     be provided permanent legal status through a new amnesty 
     program.
       Regulated legal immigration is better than unregulated 
     illegal immigration.
       Immigrant workers should have full workplace rights in 
     order to protect their own interests as well as the labor 
     rights of all American workers.
       Labor and business should work together to design 
     cooperative mechanisms that allow law-abiding employers to 
     satisfy legitimate needs for new workers in a timely manner 
     without compromising the rights and opportunities of workers 
     already here.
       Labor and business should cooperate to undertake expanded 
     efforts to educate and train American workers in order to 
     upgrade their skill levels in ways that enhance our shared 
     economic prosperity.
       Criminal penalties should be established to punish 
     employers who recruit undocumented workers from abroad for 
     the purpose of exploiting workers for economic gain.
       Current efforts to improve immigration enforcement, while 
     failing to stop the flow of undocumented people into the 
     United States, have resulted in a system that causes 
     discrimination and leaves unpunished unscrupulous employers 
     who exploit undocumented workers, thus denying labor rights 
     for all workers.
       The combination of a poorly constructed and ineffectively 
     enforced system that results in penalties for only a few of 
     the employers who violate immigration laws has had especially 
     detrimental impacts on efforts to organize and adequately 
     represent workers. Unscrupulous employers have systematically 
     used the I-9 process in their efforts to retaliate against 
     workers who seek to join unions, improve their working 
     conditions, and otherwise assert their rights.
       Therefore, the AFL-CIO calls for replacing the current I-9 
     system as a tool of workplace immigration enforcement. We 
     should substitute a system of immigration enforcement 
     strategies that focuses on the criminalization of employer 
     behavior, targeting those employers who recruit undocumented 
     workers from abroad, either directly or indirectly. It should 
     be supplemented with strong penalties against employers who 
     abuse workers' immigration status to suppress their rights 
     and labor protections. The federal government should 
     aggressively investigate, and criminally prosecute, those 
     employers who knowingly exploit a worker's undocumented 
     status in order to prevent enforcement of workplace 
     protection laws.
       We strongly believe employer sanctions, as a nationwide 
     policy applied to all workplaces, has failed and should be 
     eliminated. It should be replaced with an alternative policy 
     to reduce undocumented immigration and prevent employer 
     abuse. Any new policy must meet the following principles: (1) 
     it must seek to prevent employer discrimination against 
     people who look or sound foreign; (2) it must allow workers 
     to pursue legal remedies, including supporting a union, 
     regardless of immigration status; and (3) it must avoid 
     unfairly targeting immigrant workers of a particular 
     nationality.
       There is a long tradition in the United States of 
     protecting those who risk their financial and physical well-
     being to come forward to report violations of laws that were 
     enacted for the public good. Courageous undocumented workers 
     who come forward to assert their rights should not be faced 
     with deportation as a result of their actions. The recent 
     situation at the Holiday Inn Express in Minneapolis 
     highlights the perversity of the current situation. 
     Therefore, the AFL-CIO calls for the enactment of 
     whistleblower protections providing protected immigration 
     status for undocumented workers who report violations of 
     worker protection laws or cooperate with federal agencies 
     during investigations of employment, labor and discrimination 
     violations. Such workers should be accorded full remedies, 
     including reinstatement and back pay. Further, undocumented 
     workers who exercise their rights to organize and bargain 
     collectively should also be provided protected immigration 
     status.
       Millions of hard-working people who make enormous 
     contributions to their communities and workplace are denied 
     basic human rights because of their undocumented status. Many 
     of these men and women are the parents of children who are 
     birthright U.S. citizens. The AFL-CIO supports a new amnesty 
     program that would allow these members of local communities 
     to adjust their status to permanent resident and become 
     eligible for naturalization. The AFL-CIO also calls on the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service to address the 
     shameful delays facing those seeking to adjust their status 
     as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
       Immediate steps should include legalization for three 
     distinct groups of established residents: (1) Approximately 
     half-a-million Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and 
     Haitians, who fled civil war and civil strife during the 
     1980s and early 1990s and were unfairly denied refugee 
     status, and have lived under various forms of temporary legal 
     status; (2) approximately 350,000 long-resident immigrants 
     who were unfairly denied legalization due to illegal behavior 
     by the INS during the amnesty program enacted in the late 
     1980s; and (3) approximately 10,000 Liberians who fled their 
     homeland's brutal civil war and have lived in the United 
     States for years under temporary legal status.
       Guestworker programs too often are used to discriminate 
     against U.S. workers, depress wages and distort labor 
     markets. For these reasons, the AFL-CIO has long been 
     troubled by the operation of such programs. The proliferation 
     of guestworker programs has resulted in the creation of a 
     class of easily exploited workers, who find themselves in a 
     situation very similar to that faced by undocumented workers. 
     The AFL-CIO renews our call for the halt to the expansion of 
     guestworker programs. Moreover, these programs should be 
     reformed to include more rigorous labor market tests and the 
     involvement of labor unions in the labor certification 
     process. All temporary guestworkers should be afforded the 
     same workplace protections available to all workers.
       The rights and dignity of all workers can best be ensured 
     when immigrant and non-immigrant workers are fully informed 
     about the contributions of immigrants to our society and our 
     unions, and about the rights of immigrants under current 
     labor, discrimination, naturalization, and other laws. Labor 
     unions have led the way in developing model programs that 
     should be widely emulated. The AFL-CIO therefore supports the 
     creation of education programs and centers to educate workers 
     about immigration issues and to assist workers in exercising 
     their rights.
       Far too many workers lack access to training programs. Like 
     all other workers, new immigrants want to improve their lives 
     and those of their families by participating in job training. 
     The AFL-CIO supports the expansion of job training programs 
     to better serve immigrant populations. These programs are 
     essential to the ability of immigrants to seize opportunities 
     to compete in the new economy.
       Immigrant workers make enormous contributions to our 
     economy and society, and deserve the basic safety net 
     protections that all other workers enjoy. The AFL-CIO 
     continues to support the full restoration of benefits that 
     were unfairly taken away through Federal legislation in 1996, 
     causing tremendous harm to immigrant families.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and 
continue to reserve my point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member 
on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
raising this very important point, and we in the Committee on the 
Judiciary have worked hard to correct it. I cannot understand why it 
has only 5 minutes on each side. But we are trying to make an 
improvement on the registry by which the government recognizes that it 
makes sense to allow a long-time resident, deeply rooted immigrant who 
is here contributing to our economy to remain here permanently.
  So we have this correction for people that have come to the country, 
made

[[Page H5149]]

well, raised families, have created no problem, are otherwise good 
citizens and we are modifying a rule that INS is not able to do without 
this legislation. I think this is an excellent amendment, and I hope 
that all the members in the Committee will agree to it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much, and I thank him also for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) who has been a long-standing fighter on this issue.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding me this time. This is an extremely important issue 
which we have fought from the early times of the 1990s up to now. It 
just does not make good sense from an economic standpoint or political 
standpoint or a moral standpoint for the United States not to recognize 
that these Salvadorans, Haitians, Guatemalans all of them are here now, 
they have lived good lives and paid taxes. There is no reason for us 
now not to approve the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  It is an important amendment. If we allow these people who have been 
here a long time, paying their taxes, not breaking our rules, this will 
get them out of legal limbo.
  Mr. Chairman, some of us come from areas where there are inordinate 
amounts of people in this category. They are living in this country 
doing well, pay taxes; and this amendment will get them out of the 
legal quagmire which we put them in. It is not their fault that they 
were put in this situation. This was a mistake or misconception by INS.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that this is about 
fairness. It is that simple. And it is time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the committee before. It is 
time to address it. I think each and every Member in this body has 
dealt with a family that finds itself in limbo waiting for a loved one 
to come back.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing it forward, 
and I would hope that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) would recede 
on the point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, that is all I need just to rise in strong 
support of this amendment. I think it speaks to an extremely important 
issue; one that we have to continue to work on. I support the 
gentlewoman wholeheartedly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time. I will also offer to speak on the point of order, subsequent 
to the distinguished gentleman continuing to raise it.
  Mr. Chairman, I note even on page 37 that this bill legislated on an 
appropriations bill. But I think this is a human factor here. We are 
talking about families who have been separated from each other. We are 
talking about families who remain divided because they, for very 
important family reasons, had to leave the country to go and take care 
of family matters.
  But we are also talking about contributing individuals who have 
contributed to the economy of this country. All they want, Mr. 
Chairman, is the ability to adjust their status to legal status. The 
same right allowed to other immigrants in their same category. However 
because the INS misinterpreted the rule, and the courts have affirmed 
that the INS misinterpreted the rule, we have this injustice.
  I hope that this amendment can be passed and I thank the Chairman for 
the time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, yes. Again, I will restate, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) clearly is aware of the fact that despite 
any merits, this amendment does not belong on this bill. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it 
proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in the pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it directly amends existing 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) wish 
to be heard on the point of order offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham)?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me refer the Chairman to 
page 37 of this bill which, in fact, under section 112 there is the 
implementation of a genealogy fee, which as far as I am concerned is 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  This is such a crucial bill, if there is precedent that we have 
legislated on an appropriations bill, then I would ask that the point 
of order be waived and that this amendment be allowed to go forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that the 
amendment proposes a direct amendment to existing law. As such, it 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The 
point of order is sustained, and the Chair would advise Members that 
other provisions in the bill that may be legislation were subject to 
waivers of points of order.


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Amendment No. 75 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for payment of 
     expenses of any United States delegation or special envoy at 
     a United Nations-sponsored meeting at which the delegation or 
     envoy votes for or otherwise advocates the adoption of any 
     provision under the United Nations Convention Against 
     Transnational Organized Crime that legalizes, legitimizes, or 
     decriminalizes prostitution in any form or under any 
     circumstances, or otherwise limits international efforts to 
     combat sex trafficking whether or not the individual being 
     trafficked consents to engage in prostitution.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this limitation of funds amendment is simple, direct 
and necessary. It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to pay 
expenses for any United States delegation or special envoy at a United 
Nations-sponsored meeting at which the delegation or envoy votes for or 
otherwise advocates the adoption of any provision that legalizes, 
legitimizes, or decriminalizes prostitution in any form, or under any 
circumstance, or otherwise limits international efforts to combat sex 
trafficking, whether or not the individual being trafficked consents to 
engage in prostitution.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues would not think that such a resolution 
would be necessary. But here are the sad facts. At Beijing +5, there 
was a document released condemning the sexual exploitation of women 
around the world. It eloquently condemned domestic violence, sexual 
abuse, sexual slavery and sexual harassment. But on the issue of 
prostitution, it clarified, quote, ``forced prostitution.''
  Why ``forced'' prostitution? All prostitution is the sexual 
exploitation of women. How, exactly, does one distinguish between women 
who are sometimes forcibly taken and sold into prostitution, those who 
are involuntarily forced to sign ``consent'' or voluntary participation 
forms, those whose families push them into such agreements, those in 
dire poverty where circumstances drive them into sexual exploitation, 
and those who knows what

[[Page H5150]]

other societal pressures would pressure them into selling their bodies 
for sex to those who choose to exploit them?
  Apparently, our U.S. delegation at the two most recent conferences, 
one in Vienna and one in Beijing +5 Conference, felt it could do so. 
According to reports, the Philippine delegation moved to strike the 
word ``forced'' prostitution. According to numerous eyewitness reports, 
the U.S. State Department official assisting the U.S. delegation jumped 
up and moved to strike the entire reference.
  Mr. Chairman, what is going on here? Is it the Clinton 
administration's position that prostitution is okay?
  Feminist leaders apparently thought so. Equality Now had already sent 
a letter on behalf of a coalition of women's rights groups to the 
President after the conference in Vienna which states, among other 
things, ``To our chagrin, the United States strongly supports the use 
of the term `forced prostitution' rather than `prostitution' in the 
definition of `sexual exploitation.' We believe that the 
administration's current position on the definition of trafficking is 
extremely detrimental to women.''
  It was even more difficult for these feminist leaders to condemn the 
administration's position since Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Chair of 
the President's Interagency Council on Women, formed after the initial 
Beijing Women's Conference. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the conference and 
delivered several other messages of support.
  After the United States Government effort to protect some types of 
prostitution, that somehow it viewed as nonexploitative of women became 
public, clarifications and denials of sorts were made.
  Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff carefully qualified their position, 
taking the position that the document did not require the U.S. to 
change our laws, a somewhat accurate response to a completely different 
question. The document only condemned some types of prostitution. The 
United States representatives clearly wanted some types not to be 
condemned, and the First Lady's Chief of Staff did not deny that point.

                              {time}  2115

  The President's response was somewhat more clear in a fuzzy sort of 
way. Agreeing with this resolution, my resolution, he clearly states 
his ``opposition to prostitution in all its forms.'' Then he subtly 
changes the point to, ``We would not become a party to any treaty that 
weaken laws against prostitution,'' and then further attempted to 
change away his Beijing +5 actions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.
  Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. SERRANO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), who has worked with this amendment and has 
been a leader on this issue.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana.
  As a Member of Congress, I like to dream about the future of our 
country and imagine an educated America, a healthy America, a 
prosperous America, and a secure America. I think of children in this 
great Nation and the bright future that they represent. Unfortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, for many throughout this world their tomorrow is not as 
bright. They do not have their health, education, and security.
  In fact, they live in utter misery under the cruel control of their 
oppressors. They are women and children who are sold, coerced, or 
otherwise find themselves being exploited by sex traffickers. This is 
the life of approximately 2 million people worldwide.
  Many women find themselves victims of sexual trafficking by being 
drugged and kidnapped and lured with false promises of jobs far away. 
They are beaten and raped until they consent to prostitute themselves 
to customers. Is this voluntary prostitution? Prostitution is an 
exploitation of women and a violation of their dignity and basic human 
rights.
  To my great dismay, while the Clinton administration may pay lip 
service to this same idea, their actions do not show it. Despite the 
horrors of the sex trafficking industry throughout the world, this 
administration has promoted the position that voluntary prostitution is 
okay and sex traffickers, who are somehow able to obtain the consent of 
their victims, should be immune from prosecution. This is 
unconscionable and unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I do not believe the 
State Department ought to be able to use the taxpayers' dollars to send 
representatives of the United States to the U.N. conference where they 
take the stance that voluntary prostitution is okay and a legitimate 
form of labor.
  Mr. Chairman, prostitution in any form or under any circumstances is 
an intolerable exploitation of women.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina has 
expired.
  Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment.
  The amendment changes existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. SOUDER. First off, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the 
interpretation that I fear is coming. From our discussions, I 
understand that this is anticipating a future action, potentially, and 
therefore could be construed as legislating on an appropriations bill.
  However, since the last two conferences in a row, with our last 
funding process that we went through in this House, in fact the 
administration agents, through the State Department, took this 
position. I would argue that this is a limitation of funds because 
there is no reason to believe that they will not take the position a 
third time.
  I understand that this is now at the mercy of the Chair, and I hope 
he strongly considers that position.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New York raises a point of order that the 
amendment changes existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The amendment in pertinent part seeks to restrict funds for United 
States delegates who ``otherwise advocate'' the adoption of a described 
convention.
  The fact that similar representations have been advocated in the past 
by delegates to the United Nations does not immunize the amendment from 
the point of order, which applies to the use of funds in the next 
fiscal year.
  Requiring the relevant Federal official to determine whether a 
delegate has ``advocated'' the adoption of a convention under any 
circumstance imposes a new duty.
  Accordingly, the amendment is not in order and the point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 
briefly discuss the funding level for International Broadcasting.
  I want to thank the gentleman for providing an increase in funding 
for International Broadcasting Operations and Broadcasting Capital 
Improvements above last year's level, and specifically for the increase 
for Radio Free Asia. This additional funding will enable these 
broadcasting services to meet some of the overwhelming demand for 
uncensored news and information in oppressed areas of the world.
  However, there is still a great unmet need, especially in Asia. In 
H.R. 4444, which granted permanent normal trade relations to China, was 
legislation authorizing increased funds for international broadcasting 
services in China and neighboring countries. If this package should be 
signed into law before

[[Page H5151]]

the conference on this appropriations bill, and additional funds are 
made available, I ask that the gentleman from Kentucky work with me to 
ensure that international broadcast funding be increased.
  H.R. 4444 provided for an additional authorization of $65 million for 
Broadcasting Capital Improvements and $34 million for International 
Broadcasting Operations. I realize there is a large amount of money in 
today's tight budgetary constraints. However, international 
broadcasting is in desperate need of new and stronger transmitters to 
counteract the increase of jamming practices by oppressive regimes of 
Asia. Expansion of Internet capability is also greatly needed as the 
Internet continues to become accessible to more people.
  Any increase in funding allowing for the expansion of these services 
would make a significant difference for the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors and be a beacon of light to billions of Asians living under 
repressive regimes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his statement and his long-standing efforts on behalf of 
International Broadcasting.
  Should H.R. 4444 become law, and additional funding be provided in 
our allocation, we will endeavor to fund Radio Free Asia, Voice of 
America, and Broadcasting Capital Improvements at a level which 
reflects the increasing needs in Asia.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the chairman for his acknowledgment of my request 
and his support for International Broadcasting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and as a Member of Congress who has two Weed and Seed sites in his 
district in Michigan, one in Benton Harbor and one in Kalamazoo, I know 
very well how valuable the Weed and Seed is to the people who live 
there.
  I commend the chairman for recognizing the value of the Weed and Seed 
program and recognizing that the best solutions to crime problems are 
customized to neighborhood needs, which is at the very core of the Weed 
and Seed program.
  The bill before us tonight provides $33.5 million for Weed and Seed, 
which is the amount that was appropriated in the fiscal year 2000 bill. 
However, in previous years, the Department of Justice was permitted to 
reprogram other funds to the Weed and Seed program, increasing the 
level of funds available to the program. For instance, in fiscal year 
2000, the program received $40 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the gentleman from Kentucky 
might be able to give me an assurance that he will work to assure that 
the Weed and Seed program will receive at least as much funding in 2001 
as we received in fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan for his work on this issue.
  I will work to assure the program is funded in fiscal 2001 at least 
at the level of funds available in the current year.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I have concerns regarding the level of funding provided for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's scientific and 
technical research and services account, including the Global Standards 
Program.
  As the chairman knows, the Global Standards Program is intended to 
provide guidance to industries and to facilitate global harmonization 
of standards where possible. An issue has come to my attention that 
involves standards for anchor bolts that are post-installed in 
concrete.
  The Transatlantic Business Dialogue has recommended that NIST 
facilitate a transparent standards harmonization process for these 
products, which are sold in Europe and the United States. Is it the 
gentleman's opinion that this bill provides adequate funding for this 
effort?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the 
gentlewoman that, yes, I do believe this is a function that would be 
adequately covered by the funding provided in the bill for NIST. It is 
my understanding that NIST has begun a technical analysis on this very 
issue.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for clarifying this 
issue for me.


             Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     107, after line 21) the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to seek the revocation or revision of the laws or 
     regulations of another country that relate to intellectual 
     property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals or other 
     medical technologies and comply with the Agreement on Trade 
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to 
     in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).


     Modification to Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment such that it explicitly applies only when the United States 
Trade Representative is engaged in a Special 301 process established 
under the 1974 Trade Act and that it applies only to developing 
countries.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Brown of 
     Ohio:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be:
       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the United States Trade Representative to seek the 
     revocation or revision of the laws or regulations of a 
     developing country under the Special 301 process established 
     under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended that relate to 
     intellectual property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals 
     or other medical technologies and comply with the Agreement 
     on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
     referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)?
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for an explanation of his 
modification.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, malaria killed 1.1 million people 
last year; 2.2 million people, mostly children, died of diarrheal 
infections; 2.3 million died of AIDS; 1.5 million of tuberculosis. Mr. 
Chairman, we know how to treat each of these diseases. We could have 
saved the lives of many of these people.
  Countries around the world are attempting to expand access to 
desperately needed prescription drugs by pursuing competitive 
strategies explicitly permitted under international trade agreements. 
The USTR, on behalf of the global prescription drug industry, has made 
a practice of pressuring these nations to forsake legitimate strategies 
that can achieve lower prices; strategies like parallel importing and 
compulsory licensing.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation and object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Both of these practices, parallel importing and compulsory licensing, 
are explicitly permitted under a world trade agreement commonly 
referred to as TRIPS. The WTO TRIPS accord sets

[[Page H5152]]

global norms for patents, for trademarks, for copyrights, and for other 
types of intellectual property.
  It is a tough set of requirements. For example, it requires all WTO 
member countries, including the United States, to adopt 20-year patents 
on medicines, even though under our patent law our patent length was 17 
years.
  The WTO TRIPS agreement requires many poor countries to adopts rules 
that actually raise the price of their medicines. The USTR, on behalf 
of the prescription drug industry, is pushing countries to abandon 
fully sanctioned actions, like parallel importing and compulsory 
licensing.
  It is difficult to believe the U.S. is participating in efforts to 
prevent developing countries from fighting back when drug companies 
ignore the dire consequences of their actions and abuse their monopoly 
power, for example, when they impose higher prices in developing 
countries than in industrialized nations, as in the case with AIDS drug 
Fluconazole.

                              {time}  2130

  U.S. trade officials have pressured South Africa, Thailand, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Costa Rica, the Dominican 
Republic, and many other poor nations, threatening sanctions unless 
they forsake rights they have under the TRIPS agreement.
  In many of these countries, the average income is less than $1 a day.
  In December last year, President Clinton told the WTO it was time to 
change U.S. trade policy, to consider the issue of access to medicines.
  In May, the President issued an executive order prohibiting the USTR 
from pressuring sub-Saharan African nations into giving up legitimate 
competitive strategies aimed at expanding access to HIV/AIDS drugs.
  In justifying his decision to reign in the USTR, the President 
asserted ``it is in the interest of the United States to take all 
reasonable steps to prevent further spread of infectious disease, 
particularly HIV/AIDS. The TRIPS agreement recognizes the importance of 
promoting effective and adequate protection of intellectual property 
rights and the right of countries to adopt measures necessary to 
protect public health.''
  Our amendment is grounded in that same logic.
  The United States should enforce the TRIPS agreement to ensure the 
proper protection of property rights to be sure, but it should not 
undercut the balance TRIPS strikes between protecting intellectual 
property and promoting the public health.
  The President's executive order applies only to AIDS drugs and only 
to sub-Sahara Africa. Our amendment says the United States should not 
interfere in legitimate efforts to expand access to essential medicines 
in developing countries in health crises.
  This amendment does not undercut in any way intellectual property 
protections. It permits the U.S. to insist on tough provisions of the 
WTO TRIPS agreement, but it prevents the U.S. Government from seeking 
to impose so-called ``TRIPS Plus'' protections on countries when these 
more onerous protections would have a negative impact on access to 
medicine.
  Not only is this policy appropriate from a public health point of 
view, it is also consistent with the WTO TRIPS agreement itself. 
Article I of the TRIPS agreement says ``Members may, but shall not be 
obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is 
required by this Agreement.'' The key phrase is ``not obliged to.''
  The United States should honor, in fact we should applaud, policies 
in other countries that place the health and well-being of people ahead 
of the profit goals of the prescription drug industry.
  Hindering efforts to combat debilitating and fatal diseases on behalf 
of the global prescription drug industry is an unjustifiable and 
counterproductive use of our Nation's power and influence. This 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, helps us to put a stop to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong on this bill. It is a 
subject for the Committee on Ways and Means. It is within their 
jurisdiction. And they are objecting. In addition, the administration 
is strongly opposing the amendment. It will bog down this bill.
  So, for all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am in 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. The Brown 
amendment compromises USTR's ability to protect U.S. intellectual 
property rights around the world for U.S. pharmaceutical companies and 
medical device manufacturers.
  Section 315 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act clearly states that 
it is U.S. policy to seek enactment and implementation of foreign 
intellectual property laws that strengthen and supplement TRIPS. The 
Brown amendment directly contradicts this provision, conflicting with 
U.S. law.
  The pharmaceutical and medical technologies industry depend on 
consistent and fair trade rules, including those that protect 
intellectual property rights. Without such practices, companies and 
those who invest in them will be discouraged from providing the 
necessary capital to pursue the development of new medicines.
  A consistent theme in U.S. trade policy is encouraging an environment 
based on rule of law around the world that U.S. firms need to be able 
to compete. The Brown amendment sends countries conflicting messages 
that we would like them to provide the highest degree of intellectual 
property protection in every category except pharmaceuticals and 
medical technology.
  Ironically, the Brown amendment, which is intended to help poor 
countries, will actually hurt them by reducing their ability to attract 
foreign investment. Developing countries need the transfer of 
technology and know-how for their economic growth and stronger, not 
weaker, intellectual protection is the way to get it.
  In short, the Brown amendment is the wrong solution to increasing the 
access of developing countries to pharmaceuticals and medical 
technologies. Instead of stripping U.S. firms of their legal rights, we 
should seek to encourage partnerships between U.S. pharmaceutical firms 
and developing countries.
  For example, several U.S. firms are already involved in pilot 
programs to increase access to AIDS drugs in African countries. 
Encouraging growing economies, as we are doing in the recently enacted 
African Growth and Opportunity Act, also enables developing countries 
to have the resources to purchase drugs without discouraging further 
innovation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a hardworking member of our committee.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a system of patents for a reason, to protect 
intellectual property rights of the people who create new inventions 
and products, as well as protect the efficacy of the actual product. 
And the efficacy of drug products and medicines are important. It is 
all about safeguarding patients, patients around the world.
  Our U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, has been pursuing 
the enforcement of U.S. patent laws in virtually every international 
market and she has done so effectively. As the U.S. representative for 
the fair treatment of U.S. products anywhere and everywhere in the 
world, this is her charge.
  This amendment basically tells that representative to stop doing her 
job. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
  I know that the intent of the gentleman is to help those suffering 
from horrendous diseases, such as AIDS and other diseases in Africa and 
other places, by guaranteeing access to prescription medicine at the 
cheapest cost. But, with all due respect to the

[[Page H5153]]

 gentleman, this is not the way to achieve his goal and he will not 
likely achieve his goal.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this amendment. A year ago, 
on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, we debated the 
Sanders amendment dealing very specifically with Asian and African 
countries applying specifically to pharmaceuticals.
  The amendment now that we have before us seems to me to apply far 
beyond pharmaceuticals to any medical technology. It could cover laser 
equipment used in cosmetic surgery, prohibit the executive branch from 
encouraging nations to provide TRIPS Plus protection to patents which 
cover such laser technologies.
  It also seems like the Sanders amendment last year was designed to 
make pharmaceuticals more affordable. It specifically was approaching 
trade representative activities which enforced patent laws that would 
make drugs more expensive. This does not have that kind of limitation.
  The Brown amendment would prohibit the executive branch from seeking 
to appeal a TRIPS compliant law covering IPR and pharmaceuticals that 
is intended to discriminate against U.S. pharmaceuticals.
  So a Western European law that has nothing to do with getting drugs 
to Africa, which has nothing to do with dealing with the crisis in 
Africa, but which is designed to discriminate against U.S.-made 
pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, the USTR would be prohibited 
from focusing on it if it did not violate TRIPS.
  I think that it may overreach in that regard, and that is why I have 
some concerns about this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

       Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. 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 of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would block the implementation of 
unratified limitation on missile defense. Precisely the same amendment, 
word for word, passed the House last year by voice vote and the 
previous year before that by a significant margin. And so, this 
amendment would merely continue that status quo in the law and not 
change present law.
  Mr. Chairman, on September 26, 1997, the Clinton administration 
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and related treaties with 
Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine. If ratified, these 
treaties would strengthen the 1972 ABM Treaty with the former Soviet 
Union and impose new and severe restrictions on America's ability to 
develop and deploy missile defense systems.
  But these agreements have not been submitted to the Senate and they 
have not been ratified. And that is why this amendment should pass, so 
that they are not implemented unless and until the U.S. Senate 
considers and ratifies those agreements.
  Mr. Chairman, these agreements, the MOU and related documents, 
essentially do two things. First of all, they change the parties to the 
1972 ABM Treaty, substituting for the USSR: Kazakhstan, Belarus, 
Russia, and the Ukraine. Secondly, and more importantly, they really 
expand the Treaty and expand the scope to disallow more theatre and 
missile defense systems.
  The original 1972 Treaty places no limitations on theater missile 
defense. These new demarcation agreements would prohibit the U.S. from 
being able to fully develop our theatre missile defense systems. And 
that is, of course, why these agreements are so important.
  Now, the Clinton administration has frankly admitted there is no 
debate, and this House has voted many times that this is a new treaty 
and, therefore, must be put before the United States Senate and 
ratified by the United States Senate. This has never happened. And that 
is why we should pass this amendment to prevent implementation unless 
and until the Senate takes up and ratifies these new treaties.
  As I said, this passed last year by a voice vote. It passed the year 
before that by a substantial margin. I would certainly implore the 
House to pass it again this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I seek the time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because this 
issue has come up in previous years. The State Department has opposed 
it.
  In the past, the State Department, during conference, has been able 
to get language added, making it subject to a presidential 
certification. And that language is not in the amendment of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) today.
  This amendment is unnecessary because the administration has already 
said that it will not implement the September 1997 Memorandum of 
Understanding on secession to the ABM Treaty prior to its ratification 
by the Senate.
  In a letter and report provided to the chairman of the Senate and 
House Committee on Appropriations dated February 9, 1999, the President 
certified and affirmed that the United States Government is not 
implementing the Memorandum of Understanding. The way it is currently 
worded, without the President's certification language, the State 
Department would be prevented from sending representatives to meetings 
because it would prohibit money for any participation. The State 
Department wants to be able to participate in meetings even though it 
is not implementing the agreement. If the prohibition is on 
implementation but the State Department is not implementing, they can 
attend meetings with the presidential certification.
  In our view, Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to obstruct the arms 
control dialogue. It is unnecessary and it is unjustified.
  What we are saying is simply that the way this amendment is worded at 
this particular time will hamper ongoing discussions about arms control 
unnecessarily.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, with regard to the issue of the 
certification, if the certification language were in this amendment, it 
would then be subject to a point of order. So for that very simple 
parliamentary reason, that certification language cannot be put in this 
amendment on the House floor. Should the process, as in previous years, 
yield that certification language, I would not object; and I would 
suggest we should move the process along by passing this amendment as 
it has evolved in previous years.
  Also, if, as the gentleman on the other side said in opposition, this 
amendment is not necessary, then neither he nor the administration 
should

[[Page H5154]]

object to it. In fact, I believe the standing consultative commission 
does offer this administration the opportunity to implement and to push 
forward unratified new treaties. That is clearly inappropriate. The way 
to push forward these treaties, if they are in the best interest of the 
country, is to submit them to the United States Senate and have the 
Senate decide the issue. That is their constitutional duty; and, in 
fact, it is beyond debate.
  The administration has agreed that if it is a new treaty, it must be 
submitted to the Senate. So this amendment is merely a very wise, 
precautionary measure and may, in fact, yield the certification 
language as this appropriation bill moves through the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply disagree on this issue. Without the language 
concerning a presidential certification, we continue to object.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that, in fact, we are 
talking about brand new agreements, treaties, which have never been 
submitted to the Senate, never been debated or ratified by the Senate. 
So clearly this is an appropriate, a wise, a conservative and 
cautionary amendment. It has been adopted the last 2 years. I would not 
object to the certification language if it is included as it moves 
through the process. So in that vein, I urge the House to adopt this 
amendment as it has the previous two years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) to 
engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to make note of a particular 
issue. On October 25, 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction established reciprocal rights and duty 
to expedite the return of children to their state of habitual 
residence, as well as ensure that rights of custody and of access under 
the laws of one contracting State are respected in other contracting 
States.
  Subsequent to this convention, over 50 countries have become 
signatory members. Yet, egregious cases abound. A critical step to 
protecting our American children is making sure that U.S. Federal and 
State courts are aware of international parental abduction issues and 
The Hague Convention. Current law requires that the State Department 
prepare an annual report on the status of this Hague Convention. 
Unfortunately, the State Department has been reluctant to distribute 
their report to our courts. By providing State and Federal courts 
access to this document, judges will be better equipped to render 
decisions in custody cases that are in the best interest of the child.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 23 of this year, every single Member of this 
distinguished body who was present voted to support passage of a 
resolution, the purpose of which was to highlight our interest in 
making sure that American children and parents remain in this country. 
Every single Member of this House voted for H. Con. Res. 293 to urge 
the Secretary of State, in part, to disseminate to all Federal and 
State courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on 
Hague Convention compliance.
  As the chairman takes this bill to conference, I ask him to keep this 
issue in mind and endeavor to ensure that the State Department complies 
with the guidance in H. Con. Res. 293.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
issue to our attention. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as 
the bill proceeds to conference to see if we can address the 
gentleman's concerns and congratulate him on the work that he has done 
on the issue.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Allen

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Allen:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 624. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the 
     heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs -- Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'', $200,000 shall be available only for 
     bilateral and multilateral diplomatic activities designed to 
     promote the termination of the North Korean ballistic missile 
     program.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2000, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering designates a small amount, 
$200,000, of the State Department's diplomatic account for bilateral 
and multilateral activities designed to promote the termination of the 
North Korean ballistic missile program. Everyone agrees we must address 
the potential threat of a ballistic missile attack by Korea. The 
question is, what is the most effective and economical way to deal with 
the threat? Some argue the best way, the only way, to deal with North 
Korea is to build a defensive shield and then hope that it can shoot 
down a missile after it is launched.
  This approach assumes, of course, that a national missile defense 
would work as advertised, which has not been proven and could not be 
fooled by decoy technology, which we may never be sure of.
  We must continue to research and test national missile defense more 
rigorously than we are now, but given the technological uncertainties, 
NMD remains a risky and expensive option to deal with the North Korean 
threat. It is safer and cheaper to deal with a missile that has never 
been built than to gamble that it can be hit after its launch.
  Last year, the administration conducted a comprehensive North Korea 
policy review led by former Defense Secretary William Perry. It 
concluded that the urgent focus of U.S. policy toward North Korea must 
be to end its nuclear weapons and long range missile-related activities 
for which the U.S. should be prepared to establish more normal 
diplomatic relations with North Korea and join in South Korea's policy 
of engagement and peaceful coexistence.
  We have already seen progress. Last year North Korea pledged to 
suspend tests of its long range missile in exchange for easing of U.S. 
sanctions. North Korea reaffirmed the pledge last week. Skeptics say 
trust their deeds, not their words, and I agree; but the fact is North 
Korea has not tested its Taepo Dong 1 missile in the 2 years since the 
first provocative test. Some may scoff at the notion of negotiating 
with a Stalinist state, but it is worth exploring.
  In the June edition of Arms Control Today, Leon Sigal, an expert on 
North Korea and security issues, presents a cogent case that based on 
past experience cooperation with Pyongyang can work. He finds that the 
best strategy for ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and 
ensuring peace in northeast Asia is cooperative threat reduction.
  The historic North-South Korea summit offers the chance to foster 
improved security conditions in the region. The Perry review found that 
South Korea and Japan and even China share our interests in reducing 
the North Korean threat. We should take advantage of the opportunity.
  This amendment sends a congressional signal of support for continued 
diplomatic efforts to reduce the North Korean missile threat. This not 
only makes security sense; it makes fiscal sense. Diplomatic efforts to 
end the threat can be done at pennies on the national missile defense 
dollar, which is a $60 billion program. The funding in this amendment 
is one-hundredth of 1 percent of the amount we will spend next year, $2 
billion on national missile defense. There is more than one way to

[[Page H5155]]

reduce the North Korean threat, and some ways are cheaper than others.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to micromanage and tie the State 
Department's hands, so I will, at an appropriate time, withdraw the 
amendment; but I think it is important to indicate Congress' support 
for diplomatic avenues to end the North Korean missile threat.
  Subject to any comments on the other side, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

       Amendment No. 77 offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     available to the Department of State to approve the purchase 
     of property in Arlington, Virginia by the Xinhua News Agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill that will 
send a strong signal to the State Department that this body insists 
that they enforce the law. This amendment lets State know that we want 
them to require the Chinese Communist Government to request approval 
for their purchase of an apartment building overlooking the Pentagon, 
and that this body wants State to deny that approval.
  At issue is the purchase of an Arlington apartment building by the 
Xinhua News Agency. The Chinese Government owns Xinhua and the Foreign 
Missions Act of 1985 requires foreign embassies to obtain prior 
authorization from our State Department for the purchase of U.S. 
property, and it explicitly covers operations like Xinhua.
  Furthermore, the authoritative Chinese intelligence operations, 
published by the Naval Institute Press, reports that in a number of 
publicized spy scandals intelligence officers used Xinhua to provide 
operations cover. The Foreign Missions Act clearly is applicable to the 
purchase of this building by Xinhua. The name of the complex, Pentagon 
Ridge Apartments, vividly describes its strategic location. Occupancy 
of this building will allow Chinese intelligence operatives to gather 
information using a variety of means. These include direct observation 
via telescope of documents being viewed in outside offices, the 
collection of electronic impulses emanated by computer screens in the 
building and the use of laser microphones to eavesdrop on 
conversations.
  In short, this building is an ideally suited spy tower designed to 
capture our military secrets.
  If this were a unique occurrence, there would be no need perhaps for 
this body to act, but unfortunately this is just one more in a sorry 
series of security breakdowns that have taken place on the Clinton 
administration's watch. Missile secrets to China, laughable security at 
Los Alamos, Russian microphones and missing laptops at the State 
Department, the list just goes on and on, and unfortunately this is 
just one more item on the list.
  In this case, our security agencies did not even know the Chinese 
Government interest in procuring this building, a strategically 
important building.
  Now, a few weeks ago, Energy Secretary Richardson blamed the 
University of California for the missile computer hard drives at Los 
Alamos. What will Secretary of State Albright do, blame the Arlington 
Board of Realtors for this fiasco?
  I recognize that this amendment covers spending for the next fiscal 
year and would not prevent State Department approval this year, but I 
hope that a very strong show of support for the amendment will 
encourage the State Department to do the right thing and block Xinhua's 
acquisition of this strategically located building.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will 
not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I do not think 
it is necessary. I appreciate the gentleman bringing the issue to the 
attention of the Congress and the country, particularly in light of the 
recent bugging of the State Department headquarters building itself. 
The State Department tells us that this sale to the Chinese Government 
news agency does require their approval, so they agree with us. State 
will consult with the intelligence community, and it is my expectation 
that they will not approve the sale.
  Furthermore, I am told State would likely take action on this matter 
before the end of this fiscal year. So I hope this provision will prove 
unnecessary, but I do support the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman for his 
kind words. I too hope that the State Department does the right thing, 
whatever action or lack of action this House would take. I simply do 
not have full confidence in that; and I think it is reasonable for me, 
for all of us, to lack that confidence given the past recent history of 
security breaches under this administration, and that is really the 
very important context in which I bring this amendment. I do realize 
that this amendment only covers the next fiscal year, but I hope that a 
significant vote by this body will be a very strong and telling message 
to the State Department that they must act decisively to block the 
Communist Chinese Government from obtaining this literal spy tower on 
the Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Capuano

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, I believe 
it is Amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the amendment addresses a 
paragraph already passed in the reading.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts ask unanimous consent for its 
present consideration?
  Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, which 
amendment is this, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, but I do reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Capuano:
       Page 107, after line 12, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 624. (a) Within 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall conduct a study on the area 
     code crisis in the United States. Such study shall examine 
     the causes and potential solutions to the growing number of 
     area codes in the United States, including the following:
       (1) Shortening the lengthy timeline for implementation of 
     the Federal Communications Commission's recent order 
     mandating 1,000 number block pooling.
       (2) Repealing the wireless carrier exemption from the 
     Federal Communications Commission's 1,000 number block 
     pooling order.
       (3) The issue of rate center consolidation and possible 
     steps the Commission can take

[[Page H5156]]

     to encourage or require States or telecommunications 
     companies, or both, to undertake plans to deal with this 
     issue.
       (4) The feasibility of technology-specific area codes 
     reserved for wireless or paging services or data phone lines.
       (5) Strengthening the sanctions against telecommunications 
     companies that do not address number use issues.
       (6) The possibility of single number block pooling as a 
     potential solution to the area code crisis.
       (7) The costs and technological issues surrounding adding 
     an additional digit to existing phone numbers and potential 
     ways to minimize the impact on consumers.
       (b) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for 
allowing me the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with probably one of the few 
issues that will affect every single American, has affected most 
Americans already and will do so within the next 5 years, every single 
American; namely: the issue of area codes.
  In 1947, the North American Numbers Plan was enacted to establish the 
current numbering of all of our telephones, seven numbers with three 
digit area codes. As of 1994, we had 151 area codes. In the last 5 
years, that number has doubled, and as of 1999, the people that 
administer this, the Lockheed Martin, estimates that by the year 2007, 
we will be completely out of telephone numbers based on the current 
explosion of telecommunications.
  Mr. Chairman, all this amendment does is simply ask the FCC to have a 
study and issue a report to this Congress as to what they intend to do 
about this situation. Mr. Chairman, there are many things that we could 
do that we could suggest to the FCC, but at the same time, I think it 
is incumbent upon them to tell us if they have a plan that they intend 
to implement in the manner that will save lots of Americans lots of 
money.
  Many of us have been through situations where area codes have been 
added, or others have been through situations where area codes have 
been overlaid so that many Americans today have to dial 10 digits 
simply to call across the street. Many people certainly have to dial 10 
digits to get to the town next door because so many area codes have 
been added in this country; that situation is going to get horrendously 
worse each and every day.
  Just last year, the FCC cited 25 additional area codes as those, 
quote, in jeopardy. That happened since just last June. Mr. Chairman, 
this amendment is a simple amendment. It does not propose that we know 
the answers, it simply asks the FCC to provide us with their proposals 
as to what the answers will be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI, because the amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. CAPUANO. Only momentarily, Mr. Chairman, I understand and respect 
the point of order, and I would say that the next time I come here on 
this issue, I will actually be proposing suggestions for the FCC to do, 
because if I am going to get ruled our of order, I may as well get 
ruled out of order on something substantiative as opposed to simply a 
request for information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes to change existing law, 
to wit: mandating a study by the Federal Communications Commission. As 
such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Blunt

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

       Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Blunt:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     107, after line 21) the following new title:
               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the United States-European Union Consultative 
     Group on Biotechnology, unless the United States Trade 
     Representative certifies that the European Union has a 
     timely, transparent, science-based regulatory process for the 
     approval of agricultural biotechnology products.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and rise to say that 
I am proposing this amendment because of my sincere concerns for the 
US-EU Consultative Group on Biotechnology.
  This amendment would guarantee that none of the funds appropriated 
under the Act may be used to participate in or support activities of 
the consulting group unless the U.S. Trade Representative certifies 
that the European Union is operating in a timely and science-based 
process of approvals for new plant varieties, including those developed 
using biotechnology.
  What we have seen too often is the European Union used this as an 
excuse not to let our products into this market. There are already 31 
groups that have been designated to focus on this subject, I think that 
is about 30 too many, and the subject of delays brings me to a second 
reason to offer this amendment.
  For the past 2 years, the European Union has failed to complete the 
procedures necessary for marketing biotech food products in member 
States. In so doing, they are in violation of rules established by the 
World Trade Organization that require a science-based process for the 
decision or lack thereof they made regarding agricultural 
biotechnology. Instead, the establishment of yet another group to study 
biotechnology is simply a transparent attempt to string their 
inactivity along.
  Our friends and farmers in the agricultural community need help 
today. As the Government, it is imperative that we make the necessary 
commitment to look at real solutions to these European trade issues and 
not to continue to let these studies go on in a way that keeps our 
products out of the market.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that today as world scientists are 
heralding the breakthrough and mapping human genetics that the European 
Union remains in the dark ages regarding advancements in plant science.
  The European Union has demonstrated extreme reluctance in 
implementing an approval process for genetically enhanced foods. I 
think that this inaction will be prolonged by the recently announced 
consultative forum.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has talked 
about America's farmers who have been struggling now for the 3rd 
consecutive year of depressed prices, but they are not the only ones 
that are going to be affected by the European Union's inaction.
  Around the world, 170 million preschool kids are undernourished. In 
Third World countries, ag biotechnology can help develop new varieties 
that will survive the harshest climates. These countries will not be 
able

[[Page H5157]]

to undertake effective biotech research without the support, but, more 
importantly, without the consensus of developed countries.
  Besides fighting famine and besides caring for the world's growing 
population, genetic crop enhancement can also help environmental causes 
such as reduction of pesticide use, groundwater pollution and topsoil 
erosion.
  In short, as I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt) that we would prefer the provision of the amendment be included 
in this year's appropriations bill. We also respect the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I do urge the administration to insist the U.S. 
participation and the forum be contingent on agreement by the European 
Union to restart its approval process. Mr. Chairman, let us fight 
hunger not biotechnology.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) reserve 
his time?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, while I am not in opposition 
to this amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I can control the 5 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley) will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform Members of the House that just 
this week we sent a letter from 25 of our Members to the President 
asking him to recognize that EU inaction and insist that our trading 
partners in Europe agree to mend the regulatory process in order to 
allow for a science-based approval process of new plant varieties, 
including varieties developed through the use of modern biotechnology.
  It seems that today science has taken a back seat to political 
considerations and as a result, our farmers are caught in an untenable 
situation. The situation was recently complicated further when our 
government agreed to enter into a consultative process with the EU. The 
U.S.-EU consultative forum has been formed to negotiate issues related 
to biotechnology. Discussion is always a healthy exercise, and under 
different circumstances, I and others who signed a letter to the 
President would unreservedly welcome the opportunity to sit down with 
EU representatives. In fact, we have welcomed the opportunity with open 
arms in the form of 30 other such groups that are currently discussing 
related biotech issues. However, we must now stand behind America's 
farmers who are losing critical markets.
  Corn farmers are losing an estimated $200 million annually, and 
hundreds of millions in other agriculture exports are being lost. We 
must send a message to the EU that while we welcome dialogue, we insist 
that the meeting of this particular forum be contingent upon agreement 
by EU nations to restart its approval process for biotechnology 
products.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important message that we are 
sending here tonight, and I urge thorough consideration by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me further say that America's farmers and food 
processors deserve action, not just continued talk as my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and my friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) have already pointed out, there are many 
studies going on.
  We are losing an estimated $200 million a year in corn sales and as 
many millions in other ag exports. How can we justify spending 
taxpayers' money, including the tax money that our farmers pay on a 
process that promises to keep them out of the market or more likely 
promises to keep them twisting in the wind.
  Mr. Chairman, the safety of agricultural biotechnology has been 
firmly established. Our own Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, has 
stated that, quote, our best science is to search for risk. Without 
exception the biotech products on our shelves have proven safe, and 
millions of people worldwide have consumed biotech foods without a 
single adverse incident.
  Furthermore, respected scientific and policy-oriented organizations, 
along with renowned scientists and humanitarians have lined up in favor 
of agricultural biotechnology. They advocate for a process that is 
increasing crop yields, creating nutritious crops that promise to 
improve the health and welfare of millions.
  These crops are raised in an environmentally safe and friendly way. 
It means better production on fewer acres with less fertilizer, less 
chemicals, less pesticides. This is exactly the direction that the 
environment should be headed, biotechnology is part of that solution. 
It has now reached a point where reasonable people must ask really the 
question, is this really about biotechnology or is it about something 
else?
  It is an easy conclusion. The European Union nations are clearly 
trying to protect their farmers from superior products that we can send 
into that market. Regardless of its motives, the EU has an obligation 
under the rules of the WTO to act responsibly and establish a science-
based system for conducting a risks assessment of biotech products.
  Added conversation in consulting forums is not going to get this 
done. Only the resolve of the EU members, a resolve to, at a minimum, 
incorporate an approval process, will see that this goal and see that 
it is met.
  We must move forward. We must open these markets. We must insist that 
the rules of the free trade, the rules of the marketplace are fairly 
applied to Missouri farmers and to American farmers, to California 
farmers, to all of those who can participate in this new and 
significantly enhanced way.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blunt amendment.
  At first glance, the United States-European Union Consultative Forum 
on Biotechnology appears to be a step toward opening Europe's doors to 
our ag biotech products. When you look again, you start to wonder what 
the purpose of this group may actually be. The U.S. Trade 
Representative has no press release on the formation of the 
Consultative Forum; I've only seen news clippings. My staff has 
contacted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for information, 
but received no call back. If the Consultative Forum is so significant, 
you would think that information on it would be made readily available. 
I see no reason why such an organization should be funded by the U.S. 
Congress if we neither know the purpose nor the possible outcome of 
negotiations.
  Currently, there are over 30 organizations looking into the different 
issues surrounding biotechnology. Will this ``Forum'' be anything 
different than the others? I don't think so. The U.S. Government must 
have some agreement by the E.U. to restart its approval process before 
we move forward with another ``Forum'' on this issue. It cannot be yet 
another excuse to avoid action.
  This amendment should be adopted to ensure the adequate and effective 
protection of our U.S. agricultural goods produced through 
biotechnology. American farmers are waiting for the Clinton 
administration to take leadership on this delicate trade issue, and so 
far, USTR seems to be stuck in a holding pattern. It's time for our 
biotech trading policy to be taken off autopilot and moved forward to 
assist our struggling American farmers.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment from my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Missouri. This amendment would prohibit funding of the United States-
European Union Consultative Group on Biotechnology until such time as 
the U.S. trade representative certifies that the E.U. has a 
transparent, science-based, and fair regulatory process for approving 
agricultural biotechnology products.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 13, I released a report, Seeds of Opportunity, 
that reviewed the benefits, risks, and oversight of agricultural 
biotechnology. What I found is that biotechnology is safe and has 
incredible potential to enhance nutrition, feed a growing world 
population, open up new markets for farmers, and reduce the 
environmental impact of farming. Its potential benefits are limited 
only by the imagination and resourcefulness of our scientists.
  However, despite an unblemished record of safety, this technology has 
come under attack from well-financed activist groups who have created 
an atmosphere of fear in Europe. Europe's political leaders have 
capitalized on these concerns to promote protectionist regulatory 
policies that have shut out American farm products from European 
markets. In a free-trade environment, trade decisions should be 
science-based, as World Trade Organization rules stipulate.

[[Page H5158]]

  I think it is worth noting that no new agricultural biotechnology 
product has been approved in Europe for over 18 months. American 
researchers and farmers need to know that they will have a market for 
their products. The U.S. trade office should ensure that access to 
existing markets for agricultural products is maintained and that 
international agreements are neutral with respect to the products of 
agricultural biotechnology.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not see the point in moving ahead with the U.S.-
E.U. Consultative Group while the E.U. continues to persist with 
protectionist policies that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of 
WTO rules. This amendment sends a strong message to the E.U. that the 
United States will not tolerate E.U. foot-dragging that hurts U.S. 
farmers and an emerging biotechnology industry. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. 
Chairman, I understand that with the extent of this bill and with the 
fact that we do go beyond just eliminating the funding that this 
amendment may very well go beyond the scope of our rule on this bill. I 
hereby withdraw my amendment and hope to have the merits of the 
legislation considered by this House, by the President and the 
administration and, most importantly, by the European Union in a truly 
timely manner.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of yielding to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) knows, 
illegal immigration into the ninth district of Georgia has skyrocketed 
in recent years. North Georgia has quickly become a destination for 
people entering this country illegally. Word has spread throughout the 
communities that jobs are plentiful in our labor-intensive industries.
  What once might have been called a trickle of illegal aliens into 
North Georgia has turned into an outright flood. A recent study 
completed by Georgia State University concludes that in Hall County, 
Georgia, where I live, there could be an illegal immigration population 
of over 65,000.
  This is especially alarming because of the overall population of the 
country is only 120,000. The schools, health care, delivery system, and 
judicial system have all seen a dramatic influx of residents who do not 
have legal status in our country. This has had a drastic and 
debilitating impact on the social services that our community is able 
to provide.

                              {time}  2215

  But despite the growing problem of illegal immigration in my 
district, I am happy to report renewed optimism. The Quick Response 
Teams, or QRTs which the gentleman and his subcommittee have developed, 
have proved to be a tremendous success where fully implemented. The 
city of Dalton, Georgia, which is one of the cities most affected by 
illegal immigration in my district, has benefited greatly from the 
presence of a QRT team.
  These teams of INS agents work with State and local law enforcement 
to identify, apprehend, and remove criminal and illegal aliens. I thank 
the gentleman for his leadership on the interior enforcement of our 
immigration laws. Too few Members have had the courage to substantively 
address this issue. It is my hope that we can expand these successful 
QRTs to other communities that are dealing with this problem such as 
Hall County, Georgia. I would simply ask for the gentleman's commitment 
and for his continued support of interior enforcement of our 
immigration laws and especially the Quick Response Teams.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for reminding us of this enormous problem in his district. I know of 
few districts that are impacted as significantly as the gentleman's 
district in Georgia. In fact, we included an additional $11 million in 
the bill which was not requested by the administration to expand this 
QRT program around the country. In fact, I want to tell the gentleman 
that he is the inspiration for the QRT program, and I appreciate the 
problem he is facing in his home area, as well as other areas of the 
country; and I assure the gentleman that we will be happy to work with 
him as we proceed to address the problem.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise to congratulate the subcommittee for increasing the funding 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. It is a very cost-effective 
Federal-State, public-private partnership that helps small and midsized 
American manufacturers modernize to compete in the global marketplace. 
As one of my small manufacturers said to me, it is fine if you vote for 
China trade. Please, just keep these critical dollars in place so we 
can keep up with the pace of change in technology and manufacturing 
organizations, stay competitive, and win.
  Another of my manufacturers said to me, CONN/STEP, which is this MEP 
program in Connecticut, is the only program helping us assure the 
survivability, the viability, and the profitability of our small shops. 
He and others have stressed how they rely on CONN/STEP for its 
remarkable, broad network of top professionals. No individual small 
manufacturer could develop such a network. He or she has neither the 
amount of work nor the time it takes to develop such a sophisticated 
network of interested engineering and technical experts. Yet, these top 
people are at the beck and call of the small manufacturers in my 
district because of the CONN/STEP program, one of the more than 70 MEP 
manufacturing centers throughout America. They are, indeed, in every 
State and in Puerto Rico.
  My small manufacturers have depended on CONN/STEP to help them 
achieve 9000 certification, design new products, recruit new high-
skilled employees, understand and adapt lean manufacturing techniques 
and, in general, keep pace with the truly incredible rate of change in 
manufacturing techniques and processes to improve precision and 
productivity and stay competitive. MEP funds are critical to the future 
of small manufacturing, and without strong small manufacturers, our 
global manufacturers cannot survive.
  So I thank the chairman and his subcommittee for their 
foresightedness in increasing those funds.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her remarks. The bill does provide $104.8 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the gentlewoman has 
been one of the biggest supporters we have had, and we appreciate that.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, on tomorrow, the House will consider the Energy and 
Water Development appropriations bill. As was done for prior 
appropriations bills, we will be trying to develop a unanimous consent 
request that identifies the complete universe of amendments with time 
agreements on them. Previously, we had not attempted this until we were 
halfway through the consideration of the bill. There was proper 
criticism that debate on early amendments was unconstrained, but that 
debate on later amendments was constrained.
  In order to treat everyone the same, we are seeing if we can make an 
agreement at the beginning of consideration of this bill tomorrow. To 
do this will mean that we will need to know the universe of amendments 
on the Energy and Water Development bill prior to tomorrow. Therefore, 
I am asking all Members who may have an amendment to this bill to 
please file it at the desk and have it printed in the Record by the end 
of today.
  Also, if all Members who have amendments could contact the staff on

[[Page H5159]]

the energy and water development subcommittee with a suggested time for 
debate on their amendments, we would be able to develop a unanimous 
consent with the necessary input. I would appreciate the cooperation of 
all Members in this regard. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are at the end of the process here, or close 
to it; but I do want to take a moment before we do get to the end of 
the bill to thank the Members for their courtesies and for being as 
brief as we could be under the circumstances. We have had a great 
number of amendments, as all Members know, and the Members have been 
cooperative, and I appreciate that very, very much.
  Also, I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano), for being the gentleman that he is, my partner, if you 
will, on this bill. The teamwork with him has been heart-warming and, I 
think, fruitful.
  Lastly, I want to again say to our staff on both sides of the aisle 
how dependent we are upon them and how much we appreciate their hard 
work, trying to keep our tempers under control all the while supplying 
us with the information necessary to help with the amendments and the 
bill itself. We cannot say enough for the work of our staff on the 
committee and on our personal staffs, both minority and majority staff 
members. We appreciate them very much. We would not be here without 
them.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rush

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Rush:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

                 TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

                     Small Business Administration

              program for investment in microentrepreneurs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the PRIME Act (as added 
     by section 725 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-
     102)), to be derived by transfer from the aggregate amount 
     provided in this Act under the heading ``National Oceanic And 
     Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for 
     the National Weather Service), $15,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House on Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment to the Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill to authorize $15 
million for the PRIME Act. The PRIME Act was signed into law as part of 
the Financial Services Act in November of 1999, but yet has not 
received any funding. Funding for the PRIME Act will provide the SBA 
the opportunity to establish a microenterprise technical assistance and 
capacity-building grant program.
  Mr. Chairman, in our communities all across this country, there are 
small entrepreneurs with great ideas and aspirations toward furthering 
the business objectives to strengthen our commerce, but there are more 
than a few problems which they face. These entrepreneurs are usually 
unable to secure adequate funding, cannot market themselves to 
potential clients, are not educated with the business venture, and need 
the ability to lead their own lives.
  The PRIME Act will provide assistance in the form of grants to 
qualified organizations. Qualified organizations are microenterprises 
that are very small businesses, that typically have fewer than 10 
employees, and generally lack access to conventional loans, equity or 
other banking services. A qualified organization will be able to use 
these grants to provide training and technical assistance to 
disadvantaged entrepreneurs, provide training and capacity-building 
services to microenterprise development organizations and to aid in 
researching and developing the best practices in the field of 
microenterprise and technicals assistance programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the PRIME Act is necessary to help people start and 
maintain businesses, contribute to their own individual self-reliance, 
and to strengthen our commerce. If there was ever a real solution to 
encourage people to work hard to control their own destiny, then 
certainly PRIME is the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
of the subcommittee, if at all possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of this particular amendment. As 
the gentleman knows, this amendment passed out of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services with unanimous support, bipartisan 
support. It passed the House in the conference committee 
overwhelmingly, but yet the subcommittee has not funded it. I would ask 
the chairman, if he would be so kind, to work in the conference 
committee, if this bill passes this House, to try to secure funding for 
the PRIME Act. Again, it has been endorsed and supported by the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and it has 
strong bipartisan support.
  With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would entertain a motion to 
withdraw this amendment if we could reach an understanding of some kind 
and if we can have some kind of consideration from the chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. This 
is an unauthorized program that has been requested, and given the 
spending constraints that we have been operating under, there are a lot 
of new programs that we just were not able to fund, this included. This 
is certainly not alone; there are a lot of other programs that we were 
not able to find money to fund.
  I am really concerned about the gentleman's amendment, though, 
because it would cut the National Weather Service by some $15 million. 
The administration has already said that we have underfunded the 
Weather Service; and yet this would cut another $15 million from such 
things as providing tornado warnings and flash flood warnings, winter 
storm warnings, hurricane warnings and the like. So I would hope that 
the gentleman could see his way clear to withdraw the amendment, and we 
can discuss the PRIME program as we proceed to final conclusion on the 
bill; and I would appreciate the gentleman's advice as we do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) has 
expired.
  Does the gentleman seek to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to adding 1 minute on both sides?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would briefly yield, I 
made a misstatement, the program is authorized. I said it was 
unauthorized. It is authorized, in fact.
  Mr. RUSH. Well, since it is authorized, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman change his determination?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, we have been under 
severe funding constraints, and I will be happy to work with the 
gentleman as we proceed to see if there is some way to do that.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I also want to join the chairman, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), in thanking both our staffs 
for the work they have done on this bill, and to thank him personally 
for his treatment of this ranking member, and the diplomatic way in 
which he deals with me. We have a special relationship.

[[Page H5160]]

  I also want to reiterate to the chairman, as I said before, that I 
will be supporting this bill tonight. Many Members on this side of the 
aisle will not. I will support the bill with the intent to continue to 
work with the chairman to make this the bill that I think it should be 
when this process is over.
  However, I have to be honest, that unless some very dramatic changes 
take place in this bill, the second time around the gentleman will see 
even less support on this side. I do that understanding the gentleman's 
desire to work with me and to work with us in making sure this becomes 
a better bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 367, 
noes 34, answered ``present'' 7, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--367

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--34

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Farr
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Maloney (CT)
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Payne
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--7

     Blumenauer
     Dixon
     Frank (MA)
     Lantos
     Larson
     Meehan
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Blagojevich
     Campbell
     Cook
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Shuster
     Talent
     Vento
     Waxman

                              {time}  2251

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Messrs. HILL of Montana, BLUNT, HOLT, ALLEN, 
CLEMENT, SHERMAN, WEXLER and CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  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, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member supports and is deeply 
appreciative of the efforts of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice and State, to address the many concerns within their 
jurisdiction. However, this Member rises to address a particular 
concern that is considered by the legislation before this body today. 
In particular, it is important to understand the security risks faced 
by U.S. embassy personnel and other public servants who are tasked with 
advancing America's interests overseas.
  Following the devastating embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) was created. This Panel's 
recent report concluded that the U.S. overseas presence is near a state 
of crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information 
technology, outmoded administrative and human resource practices and 
poor allocation of resources threaten to cripple our nation's overseas 
capabilities. The percentage of the U.S. budget devoted to 
international affairs has been declining for four decades. The 
international affairs budget is now about 20% less in today's dollars 
than it was on average during the late 1970's and 1980's.
  The legislation before this body today recommends a level for the 
Department of State and international broadcasting at $6.6 billion. 
Although below the Administration's request, it represents a $300 
million increase over last year's enacted level. However, in a number 
of key areas recommended appropriations still fall far short of what is 
needed.
  However, this Member would emphasize that he has serious doubts about 
the level of this Administration's commitment and progress in improving 
security for our overseas facilities. In past years the 
Administration's request for Embassy security funding has been woefully 
inadequate. This year, the Appropriations committee fully funded the 
Department's FY 2001 request of over $1 billion for Embassy security 
($410 million for diplomatic and consular programs and $648 million for 
the embassy security, construction and maintenance account.) However, 
the American Foreign Service Association is urging that Congress

[[Page H5161]]

appropriate $200 million more than the Administration requested for 
overseas security. AFSA notes that 80 percent of our 260 posts abroad 
do not even meet current, much less Inman, security standards. With an 
additional $100 million the Department could more than double the 
number of posts with upgraded perimeter security. The other $100 
million could provide enhanced protection from exploding glass windows 
at posts which are considered highly vulnerable. Otherwise, the level 
of precaution will not be reached under current circumstances for at 
least five years.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a crying need for wholesale reform of the way 
our Embassies are financed and constructed, starting with changing 
OMB's scoring rules to allow lease/purchase and lease/buyback 
arrangements. It defies logic to constrain the leasing of secure, 
modern diplomatic facilities only for arcane budgetary scoring 
reasons--yet that is the case. The OPAP report provides an excellent 
series of recommendations that could help us build new secure 
facilities more quickly, which the Administration should seek to 
implement in their entirety as soon as possible.
  Another area in which additional funds are needed is the capital 
investment fund which provides for new information technology and 
capital equipment. The Congress authorized $150 million for this 
purpose, even though the Administration requested only $97 million. 
Regrettably, the Committee provided only $79.7 million, which is below 
even the current year's level. The OPAP report correctly notes that 
this is a critical need if we are to bring our representation abroad 
into the modern age.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member notes that on May 26th the 
President signed H.R. 3707 (P.L. 106-212), introduced by this Member, 
which authorizes $75 million for the construction of a new facility for 
the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). The current AIT is a 
dilapidated, rundown collection of buildings, or in some cases Quonset 
huts, that fails to meet even minimal security standards. The current 
AIT also fails to provide the necessary facility to adequately 
represent our country or to reflect the importance our country attaches 
to our long-standing, critically important relations with Taiwan. 
Construction of a new, secure facility will be an important indication 
that the U.S. presence will be maintained on Taiwan through the AIT for 
as long as it takes to assure that any reunification of China and 
Taiwan will be only by peaceful, non-coercive means.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member hopes the Appropriations Committee 
will in the future note the importance of this legislation, and that in 
turn the Department of State will act quickly to begin design and 
construction of a new facility.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? If not, under the rule 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) 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. 
4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 529, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Chair announces that this vote will be followed by four 5-minute 
votes on motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 195, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Herger
       

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Blagojevich
     Campbell
     Cook
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Jenkins
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Ryun (KS)
     Shows
     Shuster
     Talent
     Vento
     Waxman

[[Page H5162]]



                              {time}  2308

  Mr. TOOMEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BECERRA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 326 I inadvertently voted 
``present.'' I intended to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________