[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.''
____________________