[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11265-H11297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4942) making appropriations for
the government of the District of Columbia and other activities
chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
653, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
the legislative day of Wednesday, October 25, 2000, Volume II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 20 minutes
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and ask that he may
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the conference report on H.R. 4942, and that I may include tabular
and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill constitutes the conference report on the
annual appropriation to the District of Columbia. In addition to that
conference report, which I believe has been resolved to the
satisfaction of both sides of the aisle, in addition to that, the bill
also includes the annual appropriations for the Commerce, Justice and
State Departments. The debate on that, Mr. Speaker, will be presented
by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and persons through him, as
he chairs that particular subcommittee.
But let me address myself first regarding the District of Columbia
bill. I believe we have worked out something that is quite satisfactory
to all persons concerned, persons in the District, persons on the other
side of the aisle, persons on our side of the aisle, and I appreciate
the effort that was put forth to bring people together on a bill that
some people did not think we were going to be able to do. But we have.
The amount in the bill that is presented in the conference report to
the House is higher than the House appropriation number when the bill
left here, and lower than the Senate number. It is an appropriation of
$445 million. The House had passed $414 million; the Senate passed $448
million.
I should note for the record that the bill is approximately 1.5
percent above what the appropriation was last year, but it would only
be one-half of one percent, were it not for the inclusion of $6 million
to help defray costs of the Presidential inauguration that will occur
in January.
The bill resolves several issues that we had before. It provides full
funding for the College Tuition Support Program for high school
graduates from the District of Columbia. It has the full requested
Federal contribution for the
[[Page H11266]]
new and very important New York Avenue Metro Station, which is
important not only in the sense of transportation, but also as a focal
point of economic development and improvement of job possibilities here
in the District of Columbia.
We have appropriated $3.5 million for brownfield remediation to clean
up the Poplar Point area, so it can be back to usefulness once more. We
continue to have funding for environmental cleanup of the Anacostia
River.
We have special appropriations for making sure that character
education, values education, are included within the D.C. public
schools. We have a provision that we hope will help the District to get
a handle on the annual funding problems of D.C. General Hospital. Among
other things, it requires the Mayor and the Council and the PBC, the
Public Benefits Corporation, to make the tough decisions, that they are
willing to make, of significant downsizing of their personnel so that
they can get that facility out of the major, major red ink under which
it has been operating.
We also have the provisions in this bill to assist in strengthening
the charter schools within the District of Columbia, these being public
schools, but which are operated under a charter, rather than the normal
school operation. I believe the enrollment of public school students in
the District of Columbia that are attending charter schools, by choice
of their parents, is now up to 13 percent, Mr. Speaker. We want to make
sure that they have the proper access to the same resources that other
public schools do.
We could talk about other provisions that are in the bill, Mr.
Speaker; and, if necessary, we can delve into them, but I recognize the
main debate on this legislation is not going to be over the D.C.
appropriation, which has been worked out to the satisfaction of all
significant parties involved, but is going to be on the Commerce,
Justice, State appropriation.
Rather than recounting more about the D.C. bill, Mr. Speaker, I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the
conference agreement on H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia
Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2001. The conferees met on October
11th and resolved the matters in disagreement between the House and
Senate bills. The conference report includes the Commerce, Justice,
State and Judiciary Appropriations Act for FY 2001 and has been filed
in the House. I will discuss that part of the conference report that
relates to the District of Columbia. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) will discuss the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary items
in the report.
For the District of Columbia, the conference agreement we reached
with the Senate totals $445 million in Federal funds which is $31
million above the House bill and $3 million below the Senate bill. The
$445 million recommended is $8 million or about one and one-half
percent above last year's appropriation. Were it not for the
appropriation of $6 million for the Presidential inauguration, the
increase would be one-half of one percent.
Regarding the major funding issues, the conference agreement includes
the requested $17 million in Federal funds for the college tuition
assistance program for District residents we started last year as well
as the full $25 million in Federal funds for the new Metrorail station
on New York Avenue. We are able to retain in conference $112 million
for the largest-ever drug testing and treatment program to crack down
on the link between drugs and crime, so that DC's streets and
neighborhoods will be far safer. For children, we continue the
availability of $5 million in Federal funds to provide incentives to
move children from foster care to adoption in safe, loving and
permanent homes. We also provides $500,000 in Federal funds for the
Child Advocacy Center, which cares for the young victims of abuse and
neglect, and we include $500,000 for the network of satellite pediatric
health clincs for children and families in underserved neighborhoods
and communities in the District. We also recommend $1 million to
establish a day program and comprehensive case management services for
mentally retarded and multiple handicapped adolescents and adults in
the District as well as $250,000 for the DC Special Olympics which we
all know is a very worthy program.
A major milestone has been achieved by the public charter schools in
the District. The conference agreement includes $105 million for 10,000
students for the school year that started last month. Those numbers
reflect a significant increase from the $28 million and 7,000 students
in public charter schools during the previous school year. This growth
in public charter schools is occurring while enrollment in the
traditional public schools is declining. Parents, when given the
opportunity, are choosing charter schools for their children. Four
years ago there were three charter schools and 300 students; this year
there are 33 charter schools and 10,000 students. This remarkable
growth reflects the desire and recognition by parents that their
children need and deserve a better education--and they are finding it
in the public charter schools.
We have all read the news stories of the mismanagement by the Public
Benefit Corporation that operates D.C. General Hospital. The conference
agreement allows internal transfers up to $90 million to restructure
the delivery of health services in the District pursuant to a
restructuring plan approved by local officials that will reduce
personnel by at least 500 full-time equivalent employees without
replacement by contract personnel. These problems have been going on
for at least 10 years with hollow promises of corrective action by
District officials. Those who need health care in the District are
being ill served by a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy that local
officials have been reluctant to correct. Language in the conference
report requires that corrective action to be taken.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the needle exchange program, we were able to
reach agreement in conference on language in section 150 of the bill to
prohibit any needle exchange program within 1,000 feet of a public or
private elementary or secondary school, including public charter
schools. the language also requires the Public Housing Police to submit
monthly reports on illegal drug activity at or near any public housing
site where a needle exchange program is conducted. The District is
required to take appropriate action to relocate a needle exchange
program if recommended by the housing police or by a significant number
of residents of the site.
The conference agreement also includes language from the House bill
that prohibits the use of both local and Federal funds for abortions
except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
Another provision prohibits the use of both local and Federal funds to
implement the District's ``domestic partners act''. The conference
agreement also includes language prohibiting the use of both local and
Federal funds for any needle exchange program or to legalize or reduce
penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of
marijuana and other controlled substances. Language in section 151
provides $100,000 in Federal funds for the Metropolitan Police
Department contingent on the District enacting into law a ban on the
possession of tobacco products by minors. The funds are to be used by
the police to enforce the ban.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference agreement that will provide
significant benefits to the district's citizens while at the same time
protecting the Federal interest in our Nation's Capital which we are
charged to do by the Constitution.
I will include a table showing the amounts recommended in the
conference agreement compared with last year's enacted amount, the
budget request, and the House and Senate recommendations. I will also
include the fiscal year 2001 Financial Plan which is the starting point
for the independent auditor's comparison with actual year-end results
as required by section 132 of this bill.
In closing, I want to thank all of our Members for their hard work
and their contributions to this bill. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Moran, is the ranking Member and I appreciate his assistance. I
especially want to thank our full Committee chairman, the gentlemen
from Florida, Mr. Young, for his support and for his sage advice and
counsel. The staff has done an outstanding job: John Albaugh, Chris
Stanley and Micah Swafford of my staff; and from the Committee staff,
Migo Miconi and Mary Porter. They really do a great job. Mary Porter
has been doing this for 40 years--hard to imagine. I also want to thank
the minority staff--Tom Forhan and Tim Aiken.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report and I urge its
adoption.
[[Page H11267]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.001
[[Page H11268]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.002
[[Page H11269]]
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FINANCIAL PLANS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants and
Local funds other revenue Gross funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue
Local sources, current authority:
Property taxes.............................................. 644,360 0 644,360
Sales taxes................................................. 651,230 0 651,230
Income taxes................................................ 1,291,179 0 1,291,179
Gross receipts and other taxes.............................. 331,659 0 331,659
Licenses, permits........................................... 37,095 0 37,095
Fines, forfeitures.......................................... 67,716 0 67,716
Service charges............................................. 61,528 0 61,528
Miscellaneous............................................... 71,033 294,066 365,099
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, local revenues................................ 3,155,800 294,066 3,449,866
=================================================
Federal sources:
Federal payment............................................. 30,111 0 30,111
Grants...................................................... 0 1,305,867 1,305,867
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal sources............................... 30,111 1,305,867 1,335,978
=================================================
Other financing sources:
Lottery transfer............................................ 69,000 0 69,000
=================================================
Total, general fund revenues.......................... 3,254,911 1,599,933 4,854,844
=================================================
Expenditures
Current operating:
D.C. Financing Responsibility and Management Assistance 0 3,140 3,140
Authority..................................................
Governmental Direction and Support.......................... 162,172 33,599 195,771
Economic Development and Regulation......................... 53,562 152,076 205,638
Public Safety and Justice................................... 591,565 170,981 762,546
Public Education System..................................... 824,867 174,051 998,918
Human Support Services...................................... 637,347 898,307 1,535,654
Public Works................................................ 265,078 13,164 278,242
Receivership Programs....................................... 234,913 154,615 389,528
Reserve..................................................... 150,000 0 150,000
Repayment of Loans and Interest............................. 243,238 0 243,238
Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt..................... 39,300 0 39,300
Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing................. 1,140 0 1,140
Presidential Inauguration................................... 5,961 0 5,961
Certificates of Participation............................... 7,950 0 7,950
Wilson Building............................................. 8,409 0 8,409
Optical and Dental Insurance Payments....................... 2,675 0 2,675
Management Supervisory Services............................. 13,200 0 13,200
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Transfer Payment.............. 61,406 0 61,406
Operational Improvement Savings (Including Managed (10,000) 0 (10,000)
Competition)...............................................
Management Reform Savings................................... (37,000) 0 (37,000)
Cafeteria Plan Savings...................................... (5,000) 0 (5,000)
-------------------------------------------------
Total, general fund expenditures...................... 3,250,783 1,599,933 4,850,716
=================================================
Surplus/(Deficit)........................................... 4,128 0 4,128
=================================================
Enterprise fund data
Enterprise fund revenues:
Water and Sewer Authority................................... 0 230,614 230,614
Washington Aqueduct......................................... 0 45,091 45,091
D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board............. 0 223,200 223,200
D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission.................... 0 10,968 10,968
District of Columbia Health and Hospital Public Benefit 0 78,235 78,235
Corporation................................................
District of Columbia Retirement Board....................... 0 11,414 11,414
Correctional Industries Fund................................ 0 1,808 1,808
Washington Convention Center Authority...................... 0 52,726 52,726
-------------------------------------------------
Total, enterprise fund revenues....................... 0 654,056 654,056
=================================================
Enterprise fund expenditures:
Water and Sewer Authority................................... 0 230,614 230,614
Washington Aqueduct......................................... 0 45,091 45,091
D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board............. 0 223,200 223,200
D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission.................... 0 10,968 10,968
District of Columbia Health and Hospital Public Benefit 0 78,235 78,235
Corporation................................................
District of Columbia Retirement Board....................... 0 11,414 11,414
Correctional Industries Fund................................ 0 1,808 1,808
Washington Convention Center Authority...................... 0 52,726 52,726
-------------------------------------------------
Total, enterprise expenditures........................ 0 654,056 654,056
=================================================
Surplus/(Deficit)........................................... 0 0 0
=================================================
Total, operating revenues............................. 3,254,911 2,253,989 5,508,900
Total, operating expenditures......................... 3,250,783 2,253,989 5,504,772
-------------------------------------------------
Revenues versus expendtiures................................ 4,128 0 4,128
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. We
have worked out the D.C. bill. It is done, and I give credit to the
gentleman from Oklahoma, to the members of the subcommittee on both
sides of the aisle, and in the Senate as well. In fact, I am not even
going to mention the topic of any of these issues that have perennially
been so divisive on the floor of the House. We have a good bill, a good
D.C. bill.
We had, though, a good news-bad news conversation to relate to the
democratically elected delegate-representative from the District of
Columbia today. The good news was that, finally, after the fiscal year
had begun, the District of Columbia bill, the conference agreement, was
unanimously agreed to; it was going to go to the President.
{time} 1800
Great news. We have been waiting for this for over a year. The bad
news is that the D.C. bill is being attached to the Commerce, Justice,
State bill, which is going to be vetoed. That is very unfortunate. We
feel that D.C. deserves to go on its own accord.
If it was to go to the White House today, it would be signed tonight;
done deal; no controversy. But, instead, we are dumping a bill on it
whose veto message we are already in possession
[[Page H11270]]
of. The President of the United States has told us he is going to veto
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the President has told us that there are a number of
reasons why he is going to veto the Commerce, Justice, State bill. He
is going to veto it because it prevents the Justice Department from
being able to pursue litigation against tobacco companies, tobacco
companies whose product has resulted in the loss of billions of dollars
to the Medicare and Medicaid program.
Secondly, the President says that it fails to include hate crimes
legislation.
Thirdly, it does not address in a meaningful way privacy concerns
with regard to Social Security numbers.
Fourthly, it contains a range of antienvironmental, anticompetitive
damaging riders.
Lastly, perhaps, most importantly, I think most importantly, it fails
to redress several injustices in our immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, there is a Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, which has
been before us for some time. There is a compelling justification for
this legislation. These are people who have been working hard, paying
taxes, contributing to our community and, particularly, to our economy
for over 15 years. They have a deep abiding faith in our system.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) will explain why
a labyrinthine legislative process has left them in limbo for too many
years. It is unfair to their families. It is unfair to the communities
that they are part of it. It needs to be redressed.
We need to take care of it, which should be part of this legislation.
That is why we oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
(Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains the
agreement between the House and Senate on the Commerce, Justice, State
and Judiciary Appropriations bill.
The agreement we are bringing before the House is the result of a
long and arduous process of negotiations with the other body and the
administration. It is a sound compromise that represents the interests
of both bodies, and we think the administration--and I hope the House
will endorse it by its vote today.
Before explaining this agreement, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of
the members of the subcommittee for their hard work, their
contributions, their patience, as we have moved this bill through the
House and then negotiated with the other body and the White House.
I also want to thank our full committee chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), for his steadfast support and leadership and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member of our
full committee, for his cooperation and assistance on a number of
issues that required long and repeated negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano), my ranking member, who has done an excellent job and
whose friendship I appreciate greatly.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to thank the tireless work of our staff
on both sides of the aisle without whom this product would not be
before us now. They put in enormously long hours. They were here all
night, Mr. Speaker, and into this morning; and they have done an
excellent job. On the majority side, Gail DelBalzo, Jennifer Miller,
Mike Ringler, Christine Ryan, John Martens, Kevin Fromer, Greg Laux,
and our committee staff director, Jim Dyer. On the minority side, Sally
Chadbourne, Lucy Hand, Pat Schlueter, Nadine Berg, and Scott Lilly.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement provides a total of $37.5
billion for the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. That is
below the President's request for this year, and it is below last
year's level.
At the same time, we have provided for the critical needs of law
enforcement, diplomatic security, trade and export promotion, small
business assistance and other very important programs.
For law enforcement, we were able to reverse a number of very
significant reductions made by the other body in its version of the
bill, restoring critical funding for the FBI, the DEA, the U.S.
attorneys and the INS.
The agreement also provides new program increases for a number of
high-priority law enforcement initiatives for the FBI and U.S.
attorneys. The bill provides additional resources for the prosecution
of violations of gun laws, cybercrime and terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, we provide new funding for DEA to address the war on
drugs.
We beef up programs to address the threat of domestic terrorism,
including a $69 million increase to train and equip State and local
first responders so they are prepared for incidents, if, and when, they
should occur.
At the INS, we provided increases totalling over $500 million for
additional border patrol agents, increased the detention space to hold
criminal aliens, and for Interior enforcement personnel.
This includes over $1 billion for the processing of immigration
benefit applications. That is a 16 percent increase over last year and
$70 million for this purpose, more than the President, himself,
requested.
This bill in an unprecedented way will help solve the backlog and
applications for citizenship and other immigration benefits at the INS.
To help your State and local police and sheriffs fight the war on
crime, we were able to maintain the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
and Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, the Byrne Formula Grant
Program and the Truth In Sentencing State Prison Grant programs.
Mr. Speaker, for the COPS program, the agreement provides $1.03
billion, a major increase from the $595 million in the House bill.
Funds are included to continue established programs such as the COPS
hiring program, law enforcement technologies, bulletproof vests, and
methamphetamine lab cleanup.
Within the COPS program, we have also included money for new
initiatives to prosecute cases involving violent crimes committed with
guns and violations of gun statutes in cases involving drug trafficking
and gang-related crime.
We establish offender reentry programs and provide funds to support
police integrity training.
All in all, this agreement goes beyond the call of duty in making
sure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies have every
penny needed to battle crime, drugs, illegal immigration and the wave
of emerging threats to our domestic national security.
Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Commerce, we preserve the critical
functions of the National Weather Service, provide increases for our
national trade protection and promotion programs, and we fund the
completion of the decennial census.
Within NOAA, the agreement continues important coastal ocean and fish
habitat protection programs, including implementation of the Pacific
Salmon Treaty and grants to the affected States. After long
negotiations, we include a total of $618 million for a number of
programs related to the CARA agreement on the Interior appropriations
bill.
For our Federal courts system, we provide necessary funding to
address its ever-increasing caseload. The agreement authorizes,
consistent with past practices, cost-of-living adjustments for judges
and provides a new increase in the hourly rate we pay court-appointed
panel attorneys who represent indigent defendants.
For the State Department, we provided funding above the requested
level to ensure the safety and security of our people overseas,
including monies needed to replace our most vulnerable embassies.
Finally, we provide ample support for the work of a number of
independent agencies: the FCC, Securities and Exchange Commission, FTC,
Legal Services Corporation, SBA, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, we were faced with major differences between the House
and Senate bills, and we spent an enormous amount of time in trying to
craft a compromise that is fair, fiscally responsible and responsive to
the needs of our Members and the people they represent back home.
We have come a long way. We have an agreement that can and should be
adopted, in my judgment, by the two
[[Page H11271]]
bodies and signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the
conference report.
The conference report contains a provision (Section 629) which
clarifies that the Interstate Horseracing Act permits the continued
merging of any wagering pools and wagering activities conducted between
individuals and state-licensed and regulated off-track betting systems
located in one or more states, whether such wagers are conducted in
person, via telephone or other electronic media, provided such wagers
are placed on a closed-loop subscriber-based service, which would
include an effective customer and age verification process to ensure
that all federal and state requirements and appropriate data security
standards are met to prevent unauthorized use by a minor or non-
subscriber. The amendment clarifies that the Interstate Horseracing Act
permits wagers made by telephone or other electronic media to be
accepted by an off-track betting system in another state provided that
such types of wagers are lawful in each state involved and meet the
requirements, if any, established by the legislature or appropriate
regulatory body in the state where the person originating the wager
resides.
[[Page H11272]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.003
[[Page H11273]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.004
[[Page H11274]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.005
[[Page H11275]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.006
[[Page H11276]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.007
[[Page H11277]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.008
[[Page H11278]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.009
[[Page H11279]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.010
[[Page H11280]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.011
[[Page H11281]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26OC00.012
[[Page H11282]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a good friend,
colleague, and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say that it is for me unfortunate that this
is the last time the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) will
lead on this bill. Six years ago, the Republican Conference imposed
term limits on its Chairs, which now removes the most experienced and
knowledgeable member of our subcommittee from its Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman will provide invaluable advice and
counsel to his successor, whatever party that may be, and the gentleman
may be able to bring his considerable leadership skills to another
subcommittee, I am hoping, because the gentleman has been a true
friend, a colleague; and the gentleman knows I have the utmost respect
for him.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure also to work with the gentleman's
staff, our staff; and because time is limited, let me just say to all
the staff that I value your advice, your counsel, the work you have
done on this bill. I will personally make phone calls to your relatives
to tell them why you have not been at home most weekends and most
evenings.
I initially supported, Mr. Speaker, this bill, because I felt it was
a bill that could get better. This bill is a mixture of good and bad
news as we discuss it right now; and I am specifically speaking about
the Commerce, Justice, State bill, which I am involved with.
The bill grew and the bill got much better in many areas, where most
of us felt it was necessary to do so.
In the Civil Rights division, in the EEOC, in the COPS program, it
grew up to a billion dollars; $100 million provided for community
prosecutors, $75 million for prosecuting gun crimes, $17 million on the
COPS and police integrity grants to support increasing local
professionalism, something that we are all very much involved with.
The peacekeeping mission has been fully funded. Trying to bring this
bill to where the House and the Senate could agree was not an easy
task, but both parties, both sides of the aisle on the issue of numbers
were willing to do so; and that is why jointly with the White House we
were able to increase funding in so many areas.
The digital divide was addressed.
NOAA will receive substantially more than in the House bill. Now NOAA
will receive funding provided for minority-serving institutions.
All of the work that we wanted to put forth on this bill, Mr.
Speaker, has been met in the area of numbers. However, and this is a
major however, we had a great opportunity to do something through the
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, LIFA. It is language that would, in
fact, take care of a disparity that we have in our immigration policy,
something that we did before that we could have included other people.
It is language that would be fair and humane in dealing with a major
problem; and last, but not least, it is language that is so vital to
this bill, because without it this bill becomes a veto strategy, rather
than a getting-a-bill-signed-into-law strategy.
I would hope that as that veto comes back, and I will vote to sustain
that veto, that we can continue to work with my support to make sure
that this bill can, in fact, be what it has to be.
First, this is the last time Chairman Rogers will lead on this bill.
Six years ago, the Republican Conference imposed term limits on its
Chairs, which now removes the most experienced and knowledgeable Member
of our Subcommittee from its chair. I know Hal will provide invaluable
advice and counsel to his successor, whatever his party, and he may be
able to bring his considerable leadership skills to another
Subcommittee. Still, this is an unnecessary change.
It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Rogers and the other
Members of the Subcommittee, each of whom has contributed so much to
developing this legislation.
I also want to congratulate and thank the staff for their dedication
and professionalism, and for the many nights and weekends they put in
on this conference agreement. The Committee staff, Democratic and
Republican alike, and staff in Mr. Rogers' and my offices have all
contributed to this moment. We owe them--and their families, who
haven't seen much of them lately--a great deal.
I supported initial House passage of H.R. 4690 because I believed we
should keep the bill moving toward the improvements that would surely
happen before it could ever become law. I rise now to state that the
bill has been substantially improved.
I want to compliment our Chairman on bringing us to this conclusion.
The differences between House and Senate were enormous because the
priorities were so very different. Just getting to where the House
considered Justice funding adequate or the Senate considered Commerce
funding adequate took a great deal of work. And that was before the
Administration weighed in with its priorities.
Programs I earlier pointed to as underfunded are now in substantially
better shape.
Funding has been added for the Civil Rights Division, the EEOC, and
the Legal Services Corporation, which will receive an appropriation of
$330 million.
The COPS program has gone from a freeze at last year's level to just
over $1 billion, and $100 million is provided for community
prosecutors, $75 million for prosecuting gun crimes.
I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of $17 million under COPS
for police integrity grants to support increasing local police
professionalism. This is an area of great interest to me, and I am
working with Chairman Hyde to establish a national commission to study
police recruitment, hiring, training, oversight, and use of force
policies and make recommendations to Congress.
The Administration's requests for trade enforcement have been fully
funded and the Department's ability to collect the vital statistical
data on which our economy depends has been strengthened. Funds are now
provided to help bridge the ``digital divide'' between the information
age's ``haves'' and ``have nots''.
And NOAA will receive substantially more than in the House bill for
its critical work on weather, the health of our air and water, our
coasts and oceans, and so much more. Moreover, funding has been
provided for NOAA's Minority Serving Institutions initiative, to create
a pool of minority scientists in the scientific disciplines NOAA needs.
The peacekeeping request is fully funded, and restrictions on payment
of our U.N. dues are modified to reduce the harm they would have
caused.
In addition, every effort was made to accommodate as many Member
requests as possible out of the thousands received.
There remain problems, of course, including serious language issues
that threaten this entire package with a veto.
Failure to include the provisions of the Latino and Immigrant
Fairness Act (LIFA), despite the President's intention, repeated
yesterday, to veto the bill if those issues are not resolved is simply
a waste of time. All it will do is add a couple of days to the time we
must remain in Washington trying to finish our work for the year.
I am also deeply distressed by the provision that interferes with the
FCC's low-power FM initiative, which would be of such value to schools,
churches, and community groups in areas such as the South Bronx. In
addition, language added in the dark of night that is supposed to
improve rural television service abandons a bipartisan agreement
reached just this week and gives the advantage to existing cable
monopolists.
The bill includes new appropriations of $420 million for coastal
impact assistance and other ocean and coastal conservation programs,
built on what the Interior bill contained. These additional funds are
intended to increase resources for protection, conservation, and
restoration of fragile coastal habitat areas, but the other body skewed
the distribution away from strengthening national conservation programs
and toward funding numerous parochial projects.
While restrictions on the Justice Department's ability to move funds
around to pursue its tobacco litigation have been modified, none of the
$23 million for the lawsuit is provided directly.
Finally, the ``Amy Boyer'' provisions, far from protecting our Social
Security Numbers from display or sale on the Internet, make them far
more widely available to commercial concerns.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at how far we have come in
improving the base bill, and I am confident that the language issues
will be worked out, although a negotiating strategy would be far
preferable to a veto strategy. If the President does veto the bill, as
expected, I will vote to sustain his veto. In any case, I look forward
to the eventual enactment of the Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary Appropriations bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
[[Page H11283]]
(Mr. Latham), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary.
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
remarks.)
{time} 1815
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I just wanted to take a minute, first of all, to thank our chairman,
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who has had extraordinary
wisdom and knowledge and leadership on this bill, and there is no one
in the House that I have more admiration for, and I appreciate his very
kind consideration and leadership on the committee. It is truly
appreciated not only by myself, but by people in my district and in the
State of Iowa.
Also, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is a very dear
friend, and I have the greatest respect for the ranking member and I
want to thank him for all his help. If the staff here looks a little
sleepy, it is because they probably have not gotten any sleep the last
couple of evenings.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good bill with a lot of work in it.
I am, in particular, very appreciative of the fact that we were able to
increase funding for the methamphetamine training center in Sioux City,
Iowa, to be able to expand that program that has been of vital
assistance to local law enforcement throughout the four-State region.
It is extremely important, and that great work is going to continue
because of this bill. The local law enforcement block grant, which has
helped so many of our small communities, which are fighting the battle,
in particular in the upper Midwest with methamphetamines today, it is
very, very important. The cleanup funds that are in this bill, as far
as the labs out there, are extraordinarily important.
So I just wanted to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and
all of the staff on both sides. I think this is a very, very good bill;
and I hope everyone will pull together and pass the bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in the President's veto message,
he said, regrettably, this bill does not include needed protections
against the inappropriate sale and display of individual citizen's
Social Security numbers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) to explain the President's objection in this regard to
this bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me begin by complimenting the Republicans in the House on their
work on protecting Social Security numbers so that they are not
trafficked in American commerce. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same
thing for the United States Senate; and they have attached a rider to
the legislation which, unfortunately, makes it possible for us to move
this kind of Social Security information into national commerce.
Now, the Committee on Ways and Means, led by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), has been doing a fabulous job in ensuring that the
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives in the House,
where the liberal left meets the libertarian right, we are all going to
do something to deal with the issue of Amy Boyer whose name was
purchased for $45 by a stalker; created a Web site, this stalker; and
then ultimately killed Amy Boyer using the Social Security which he
purchased for $45.
Now, I say to my colleagues, what are we talking about in this
amendment that has come over from the Senate? We are talking about
taking this concern and riddling it with loopholes.
Now, every one of us gets a Social Security number when we are 16,
when we are 17, in the United States, and this Social Security number
increasingly has become our personal identifier. Now, what does it say
on the back of the Social Security card? It says, ``Improper use of
this card and/or number by the number-holder or any other person is
punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.'' Or both.
Now, what does the bill before us do? It says it is going to help the
problem about Amy Boyer. What does it do? It takes this protection
which we have always had and it amends it. It amends it by doing this.
It puts right here the word ``not.'' That is, it is not punishable by
fine or imprisonment, or both. It riddles it with exemptions. It says
this: If you are a credit reporting agency, you are exempted from the
restrictions of the bill. If you are a big bank, if you are a life
insurance company or a Wall Street brokerage firm, you are exempt from
the provisions. If you are a professional or commercial user, you can
sell it to other businesses, but not to the general public. If you are
a company engaged in any activity which the banking regulators have
determined to be complementary to a financial activity, such as running
a travel agency, you are exempt. You can sell the Social Security
information. If you obtain someone's Social Security number from a
public record, a driver's license, a court filing, a real estate
document, you can sell it to anyone you want.
What is left, I ask my colleagues? What protections will Americans
have if we allow this kind of codification of basically trafficking in
Social Security numbers in our country?
Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is coming to the House floor
today with a number of unrelated legislative ``riders'' attached to it.
This is not the way Congress should conduct its business.
Chief among these unrelated provisions are two problematic measures
which have not gone through the normal legislative process. These two
measures are those addressing low power FM radio as well as a measure
establishing a program of loan guarantees for local television
distribution for rural areas.
The language addressing the rural loan guarantee program was
developed solely by Republicans. I would have hoped that we could have
developed a sound compromise--just as we did when the House originally
passed this rural loan bill earlier this year. Unfortunately, the
Republican majority has decided not to work with concerned Democrats to
develop a more consensus bill.
This is especially unfortunate because as I just mentioned the
original version of the bill that passed the House back in April at
least had been developed with both Republicans and Democrats at the
table. From a procedural standpoint therefore the loan guarantee bill's
appearance as a rider on the appropriations bill today on the House
floor highly objectionable. The House had a bipartisan agreement on
this measure the last time it was considered and the House Republicans
seem willing to disrupt the compromise that had already been
established--a provision which had both industry and consumer support.
As for the substance of this new bill it departs from the original
House bill and guts key provisions that were adopted in the Commerce
Committee that instilled a preference for competition. This bill will
not only run the risk of subsidizing large media companies who do not
need taxpayer subsidies, it has now been changed so that incumbent
cable companies who already provide local TV stations can get a
taxpayer subsidy as well. This makes no sense as a public policy.
Why on earth should incumbent cable companies get a subsidy to do
that which they should be doing anyway--or that they already have plans
to do with private capital?
The legislative effort underway stems from the debate we had in the
previous session of Congress on amendments to the Satellite Home Viewer
Act which spurred the deployment of local-to-local service from direct
to home satellite providers. Satellite-delivered local-to-local service
promises to extend to millions of consumers much needed competition in
the multichannel video marketplace.
When Congress was considering legislation last year, it was clear
that the two existing DBS companies would not be providing local-to-
local service beyond the top markets in the most populated areas of the
country. The legislation before us today was prompted by a desire to
extend the local-to-local service that urban America was going to
receive to rural communities as well. The effort to do so is built upon
America's experience in extending electricity and phone service to
rural towns and hamlets.
I have long supported the universal service concept that ensures that
the poor as well as rural Americans do not fall behind and that they
can receive the basic essential services that more affluent, urban
Americans do at affordable prices.
The problem with this new version of the bill however is that it
would permit taxpayer backed loans to go to incumbent companies. If
people can already get local TV stations from a cable operator, then
the government doesn't need to get involved to extend service to that
area in the same way that we extended
[[Page H11284]]
electricity and phone service to areas that otherwise wouldn't get it.
The cable guy is already there.
Consumers in that area, however, may understandably want an
alternative to the cable operator, perhaps one they can use in
conjunction with their satellite dish. If we are proposing to extend
loan guarantees to provide alternatives to the local TV service rural
consumers already receive from an incumbent, it makes zero sense in my
view to permit the very same incumbents to be eligible for loans.
If the incumbent monopoly already provides local TV stations to a
community, then rural consumers in that community are choosing not to
subscribe to that service for some reason. That reason is most likely
price. Why would Congress ask these rural citizens for their taxpayer
dollars to subsidize the only choice in town they don't want anyway?
To do so would stand competitive telecommunications policy on its
head--rather than addressing the lack of competition or lingering
concern about affordable cable rates, we're proposing to allow the sole
multichannel provider in a rural area a chance to solidify their
position with help from the Federal government--and I might add without
any obligation from the loan recipient to price the subsidized monopoly
service to consumers affordably.
I wish this loan guarantee provision had been handled differently. I
wish we would have named conferees and worked out our disagreements
with the Senate. We had all summer long to do so. We could have done it
on a bipartisan basis.
Instead, Democrats have not been fully included in the negotiations
leading to this version of the bill and the provisions is a far worse
measure than what passed the House previously.
Here's the problem with the language in the current version of the
bill. The language in the bill says: ``that no loan guarantee under
this Act may be granted or used to provide funds for a project that
extends, upgrades, or enhances the services provided over any cable
system to an area that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, is
covered by a cable franchise agreement that expressly obligates a cable
system operator to serve such area.''
The original House bill did not require franchising authorities to
have provisions in franchise agreements that ``expressly'' regulated
able buildout schedules to serve all of the geographic areas of a
franchise. This may significantly undercut the applicability of the
prohibition on subsidizing incumbent companies because many franchise
agreements may not have explicit build-out requirements.
More importantly, the new version applies only to franchise
agreements in effect as of the date of enactment of the Act.
In other words, when the franchise agreement expires next month, or
six months from now, or a year from now, an incumbent cable operator is
eligible for taxpayer-backed loans under any ``new'' franchise--because
it's not the one in effect on the date of enactment. It's a loophole.
Tying the prohibition only to existing franchise agreements--which
are of limited duration--essentially guts the prohibition for every
expired or newly re-negotiated franchise agreement. Again, the House-
passed version kept a preference for competition, had the acceptance of
affected small cable operators in the industry, had the support of
consumer groups, and established a broad consensus throughout the
House. Today, the Senate-crafted language achieves none of those
benefits. It's bad for competition, bad for consumers, and unfair to
taxpayers.
The Commerce, Justice, State bill also includes a provision delaying
low power FM radio. This was a very controversial measure when the
House considered it and I don't believe it is appropriate to attach it
as a rider to this appropriations measure.
We need to first keep in context that this new low power FM service
comes in the aftermath of the rapid, and in my view, unhealthy
consolidation of radio properties across this nation. Before the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the maximum number of radio stations
that an individual could own in a local market was 2 FM and 2 AM
stations, and nationally, a person could own up to 40 radio stations.
Right now the top 4 radio groups own 512 stations, 443 stations, 248
stations, and 163 stations respectively, and assuming its pending
merger gets approved, Clear Channel will own over 800 radio stations
nationally. The low power FM bill is a modest effort to bring new
voices into our media mix, in a community-oriented, non-commercial
service.
The Federal Communications Commission is always at its best when it
takes the public's airwave resources and works to make more efficient
use of that spectrum for the public. The effort underway is to
supplement what already exists, not supplant or interfere in any
harmful way with existing services.
The stated reason for bringing this bill to the floor today is fear
of harmful interference. We're not talking about interference on home
stereo systems, nor about interference concerns for car radios, where
there is consensus that there will be little to no harm . . . . but
rather, potentially harmful interference--within a small area--perhaps
for clock radios or portable walkman-style radios.
Usually when there are disputes about frequency interference we
defer to the FCC. This is the job, after all, that the FCC has been
doing, and doing well, for decades. The Commission is in the process of
addressing many of the concerns raised about interference and has
announced plans to receive applications for the service initially in 10
States. As low power FM is deployed we will know whether there is
harmful interference because consumers will let us know.
Since the late 1960s, some 300 radio stations around the country have
operated within the 3rd adjacent channel proposed for low power FM.
These ``close proximity'' stations were grandfathered in 1997 by the
FCC. We didn't have any hearings about it, we didn't hear a peep from a
single broadcaster about interference issues, and I don't remember a
single Member of Congress or a consumer raising concerns about
interference issues from any of those stations--which, as opposed to
the proposed service, are full power radio stations.
In short, I don't think we need legislation in this area at all,
either to stop the program or to belabor FCC engineers to study over
and over again a technology that is the oldest and most familiar
service to them. This isn't rocket science or some new whiz-bang
technologically-sophisticated service or a hitherto unutilized
frequency allocation . . . . it's just radio.
If people have concerns, the FCC can continue to look into resolving
them. If serious problems do in fact arise from the new service, there
are already existing remedies at the Commission to address interference
issues. I would prefer that the House put this legislation on the back
burner, let the Commission do its job, and return to this legislative
proposal at a later date, when and if it's necessary. I urge members to
vote ``no'' on this bill.
There are some 300 stations around the country--high power radio
stations--that were grandfathered in 1997 and have operated many of
them since the late 1960s within the 2nd and 3rd adjacent channel
limits.
Who complains about those stations? No one has ever come up to me to
complain about harmful interference on WBCN Boston, WMJX Boston or any
of the 15 stations in Massachusetts that operate within these limits on
HIGH POWER stations. It's inconceivable that low power stations really
pose a threat here.
Around the country there are other stations operating in these
limits without provoking consumer reaction--such as: KCBS in Los
Angeles; KLAX in Long Beach California; KBCD in Newport Beach
California; KYCY in San Francisco. . . . Or any of the 50 high power
radio stations in California, or The 24 stations in Illinois, or The 25
radio stations in North Carolina, or The 28 radio stations in Ohio, or
The 24 in New York and 17 in New Jersey and so on that today operate
within the so-called 3rd adjacent channel.
There aren't any complaints. If there's a concern about interference
from low power stations--shouldn't the legislation also analyze the
logically more apparent interference from these high power stations?
The bill doesn't ask the Commission to look at those stations however.
Why? Because they are incumbents. They already got theirs.
This legislation is unnecessary and again, if harmful interference
does arise in a particular area, the Commission has a long history with
radio and a long history of mitigating interference affects.
There are other problems in this bill.
I have spent considerable time talking about how this bill would
strip the American people of their privacy protections. Well the
appropriators didn't stop there. They decided to see what protections
they could strip from our national parks as well.
Tucked way down in this bill is an exemption for Cuyahoga Valley
National Park. The exemption would keep this national park from being
afforded the highest possible clean air standards allowed under the
Clean Air Act. Let me remind you, we just designated this area as a
national park in the Interior Bill we passed a few weeks ago. So this
Congress thinks the best way to protect our natural resources is to
designate a national park one week and strip away its protections the
next.
That's like buying a brand new car that has all the latest safety
features: an airbag, motion detection systems, and the best seatbelts.
Then just before you let your son drive it, you drain all the brake
fluid. That's not the way to make your car safe. But that's how this
Congress wants to protect your national parks.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), one of the more studious Members of this
body.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
[[Page H11285]]
this time and for his leadership on this. I want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for
raising the issue of the Social Security numbers in that provision of
this bill.
Let me tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that I agree with his
concern that this is a poorly drafted provision that could do more harm
than good, and this is a Senate provision that was added. But I think
we have to put this in perspective. Even though I have strong
reservations about that, there are such extraordinary good parts,
important parts to this bill that it deserves supporting. I have had
the assurance of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman
of the subcommittee, that this will be remedied when it comes back, or
in the next Congress, and to me, that is good enough. We are going to
come back, we are going to correct this problem, we are aware of this
problem, but do not vote against the bill because of this one problem
that the Senate added.
The reason is that because we have an increase in the DEA funding,
the FBI funding, U.S. Attorneys for fighting violent crime and drugs.
The methamphetamine provisions are critically important, the Violence
Against Women Act provisions, the civil assistance provisions are
critically important. We will remedy the privacy problem. Please
support this bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the indefatigable, irrefutable and
indomitalbe Democratic leader of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is getting pretty deep in here.
Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken once on this bill earlier today,
and I would simply make three points again for reinforcement purposes.
The first problem with this bill is that it does not treat human
beings equally with respect to immigration. In my view, it continues a
vicious discrimination between the way we treat groups from one country
versus another country in this hemisphere. That alone is reason enough
to defeat the bill.
The second reason is that this Congress, it can deny it all it wants,
but this Congress has, in my view, for the past 15 years systematically
chipped away at the right of privacy for each and every American. I
remember when Barry Goldwater, Jr. was on the floor and with myself, we
were pushing for legislation to preserve the integrity of the Social
Security number so that it would not be used in the beginning steps as
an identifier. The last time I looked, Barry Goldwater, Jr. was not a
radical, left-wing socialist. We had an agreement between conservatives
and progressives and liberals and moderates that that number should
remain private and inviolate. This Congress this session has taken
several actions that weaken that right; and this bill takes another
action today, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, and
for that reason alone, this bill ought to be defeated.
Thirdly, this bill started out to provide protection for our coastal
lands, our precious coastal lands. Instead, because of its refusal to
add one sentence to the bill, one critical sentence, it now guarantees
that projects, construction projects in our precious coastal areas will
be able to be built even if they do not meet environmental standards.
So a bill which started out to protect our coastal areas is now
becoming a bill that will degrade our coastal areas.
Lastly, we have taken the most important remaining water pollution
problem before us, nonpoint source pollution, and instead of giving the
States the help they need to work up plans to deal with that problem,
this bill provides a piddly $10 million out of a multibillion dollars
bill. That is not enough for any State to do the work that needs to be
done in order to protect our precious natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge, for those reasons, defeat of this bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), a hard-working member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this bill. There are a number of very good
features in it. It provides State and local law enforcement officials
the necessary resources to bring down the level of crime.
Secondly, it funds the international trade functions of the
government at the necessary levels to open foreign export markets to
U.S. goods, and, at the same time, protecting domestic industry against
unfair foreign trading practices.
Thirdly, it protects our interests at home and abroad by funding
counterterrorism measures and embassy security measures at increased
levels. I think, in view of the events in the last several weeks, that
becomes even more important.
Fourthly, it funds the JASON project, which is the cutting edge in
long-distance learning. It is a tremendous tool, and I think we will
find that more and more of our schools will use the facilities of
JASON.
I also want to thank the chairman for including report language for
the Census Bureau that makes the expedited steel import monitoring
program more effective. The early warning system allows domestic
manufacturers to have information on steel imports on a more timely
basis.
Lastly, I noticed a typographical error, alloy steel should say alloy
tool steel.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the
District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal year 2001, which also
includes the agreement for funding the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations bill. As a member of the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to commend the Chairman for
putting together a bill which:
(1) provides our state and local law enforcement officials the
necessary resources to continue to bring down the level of crime in
this nation, (2) funds the international trade functions of the
government at the necessary levels to open foreign export markets to
U.S. goods, but also to protect domestic industry against unfair
foreign trading practices; and (3) protects our interests at home and
abroad by funding counter-terrorism measures and embassy security
measures at increased levels.
I thank the Chairman for continuing the important partnership between
the JASON project and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) that encourages middle school students to pursue
their education in the sciences. The JASON project is a state-of-the-
art education program that brings scientists into classrooms through
advanced interactive telecommunications technology.
Last spring one of the sites of the electronic field trip for
students was NOAA's Aquarius Underwater Laboratory off of the Florida
Keys. Our students need an effective science education in order for the
U.S. to keep its competitive edge in the global marketplace. I also
want the thank the Chairman for including report language for the
Census Bureau that makes the expedited steel import monitoring program
more effective. This early warning system allows domestic manufacturers
to have information on steel imports on a more timely basis. It is
critical that this program provides the necessary trade statistics as
we once again face near-record levels of steel imports this year. I
noticed that there was a typographical error in the report language.
The two new specialty steel categories are: alloy tool steel and
silicon electrical steel. The word ``tool'' was inadvertently left out
of the report.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of
the Committee on Resources, to discuss the anti-environmental riders in
the bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Wisconsin raised the issue of the coastal zone and the inadequate
funding in this legislation so that those States on our coast will have
the ability to put in place the programs that they have now developed
over many, many years, expending a lot of money to protect the coastal
zone and to make sure that that coastal zone, which is of great
importance to 50 percent of the population in this Nation and to the
jobs that are related to marine coastal zone, the commercial and
recreational fishing activities that take place there, and the economy
that is driven by the economy of that area can properly be protected.
[[Page H11286]]
One of the major assaults on the coastal zone and on the economy and
on the use of the coastal resources is nonpoint source pollution. This
legislation just completely inadequately deals with that problem.
Polluted runoff closes shellfish beds and increases harmful algae
blooms and dead zones; it closes beaches and causes fish contamination
advisories and much more that we now have to put up on a weekly and
daily basis in the coastal zones on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast
and on the West Coast of the United States. It is the single biggest
problem dealing with water quality, whether it is in the Chesapeake Bay
or whether it is in Puget Sound or San Francisco Bay or Santa Monica
Bay. We now have dead zones that extend off of the Gulf of Mexico that
are thousands and thousands of square miles that are creating dead
zones in the area, killing off the fish, killing off any kind of
economic activity that can take place there.
In my own State of California, officials in California closed beaches
3,273 times in the State of California. Certainly, last summer's
economic disaster in Huntington Beach, California, which was a direct
result of beach closure due to water contamination from polluted
runoff, underscores the kinds of problems that we were hoping that this
legislation would, in fact, deal with; the continued problems of runoff
from logging areas from the interior parts of our States and other
States throughout the coastal zone in California.
We were poised to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act and the
Federal statute that regulates these activities and provides for the
States to develop the plans. The States, many of them, have been fully
qualified, as is the State of California, to now go forward with these
plans, and yet this legislation is so meager on its resources for those
activities that we will be unable to do so.
{time} 1830
This is a huge, huge segment of the environment of the United States.
In just the State of California, we have over 1,600 miles of shoreline
and 645,000 acres of estuaries, harbors, and bays.
We have industries that are totally dependent upon this situation:
the recreation, the tourism industry. We now have beaches that have
been closed for 6 to 12 weeks and a number of beaches that have been
closed permanently.
This legislation is inadequate. It ought to be rejected. We ought to
turn this legislation down and go back and get the kinds of funds that
are necessary to protect the coastal zones of the United States of
America.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
I want to commend the two subcommittee chairmen for reporting the bill
under the budget caps. If it were a clean bill, I would support it.
Unfortunately, there was a rider that has been attached from the other
body dealing with privacy that is an almost total rollback of privacy
protection for our Social Security numbers.
The Gregg amendment, as amended in the Senate, which was added to
this legislation last Thursday night in the dead of night, with no
public debate that I can find, creates four new exceptions for the use
of Social Security numbers for commercial uses.
These four exceptions are so large that one can literally drive a
truck through them. I do not think we need to be adding more ability to
use our Social Security numbers under the guise of trying to protect
the use of Social Security numbers.
For that reason, I am very, very much against this bill, and I ask
Members to vote against the bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining for each party
controlling?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to one provision of the bill that I am very
concerned about and I wish it had not been placed in the bill, which is
a bill that I, even despite this provision, intend to vote for.
However, I am very concerned about this particular provision, and that
is the one that we have heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton)
just speak about it.
The provision that was put in this bill gives some legitimacy for the
use of Social Security numbers other than the intended use, and that is
by the Internal Revenue Service and by the Social Security
Administration.
Right now, there is a commerce in this country on selling Social
Security numbers. One can go to the Net, and one can buy Social
Security numbers. This is a personal thing.
We know of the terrible crime regarding Amy Boyer. She was killed in
New Hampshire by a stalker. I know that the Senator who placed this in
the bill had her in mind by putting the provisions in there, but the
provisions just simply do not address that question and actually gives
legitimacy where it is not deserved.
As I understand, the stalker there bought her Social Security number
off of the Internet for $45 and then was able to locate them.
We have a bipartisan solution. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kleczka) and I have filed this bill. It has been through the Committee
on Ways and Means. That is H.R. 4857, the Social Security Number
Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000. This bill restricts
the sale and public display of Social Security numbers in both the
public and the private sectors. It enhances the privacy rules that
apply to Social Security numbers contained in credit reports so that
they are less accessible to the public.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, let me assure the gentleman that we will
work with him and others to improve the language in the bill. I assure
the gentleman that his interest will be protected.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for saying
that because there is widespread jurisdiction of this particular bill.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who spoke earlier before
the Committee on Commerce, he and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) have expressed great interest in this. In fact, I think the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has been working on this
thing for some time.
Banking also has a piece of it. So it is not as simple as just
getting it through the Committee on Ways and Means. It does have this
multiple jurisdiction.
It is my intention at the beginning of the next Congress to file this
bill again. I will be again looking across the aisle to get cosponsors
and get assistance on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, he can count me
as one of the original sponsors of the bill.
Mr. SHAW. The gentleman from Kentucky is on it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it
misses an opportunity to have fairness in our immigration policy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the distinguished
chairperson of the Hispanic Caucus in the Congress, who will explain
specifically why we so strongly object to not including the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act in the bill.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a member of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, I would like to
associate myself with the comments that
[[Page H11287]]
were made by other members of the committee and thank the chairman for
his fairness and his friendship. That is one reason that I regretfully
rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4942.
Well, there are numerous problems with this bill, and I think the
previous speakers have highlighted many of them. I will address one
specifically glaring failure.
H.R. 4942 does not include key provisions that would bring fairness
and justice to thousands of immigrant families wronged by changes in
our immigration laws in the 1990s, changes that have caused families to
live in a state of limbo for far too long.
The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, or LIFA as it is known, is
designed to help families stay together. The importance of including
the provisions of LIFA in this bill, I believe, is highlighted best in
the story of Sarah Marie Caro, a young woman from Southern California.
Sarah Marie Caro was born in Mexico and was adopted by her U.S.-
citizen parents when she was 4 years old. She grew up as an American
believing in the values of this country. She learned English, was an
honor role student at her public high school and participated in the
marching band. She is now 19 years old and is currently studying at a
community college to become a teacher.
Last year, while preparing for a family vacation, she applied for a
U.S. passport. That is when her world began to fall apart. Sarah Marie
was notified that she was ineligible for a U.S. passport because she
was an illegal immigrant. Her parents who are U.S. citizens mistakenly
thought that Sarah would automatically become a citizen through her
court adoption; and, therefore, they never applied to adjust her
immigration status.
Sarah has the legal right to her green card as the child of U.S.
citizens. But without the protections provided by LIFA, this 19-year-
old tragically is left with only two options: one, to remain in the
United States illegally and to be part of a permanent underground
population; or, two, to leave her family and all she has known for most
of her life and go to a strange country for as long as 10 years.
Sarah's plight, and the plight of many deserving immigrants in this
country, must be addressed. We must honor our Nation's values of
keeping families together, not tearing them apart.
To address the crisis facing families like Sarah Marie, and there are
many, it is critical that this bill include the provisions of LIFA,
such as 245(i), which was originally in the Senate version of the
Commerce, Justice bill and dropped in conference.
Until then, I regretfully must ask my colleagues to vote no on H.R.
4942.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for being sure
that legislation that I introduced, along with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), is included in this legislation.
This is legislation that millions of Americans have been waiting a
long time to see, and that is legislation to make sure that satellite
owners, millions of satellite dish owners, have the opportunity to have
on their satellite dish their local news, weather, sports, emergency
information, community affairs information, and end the frustration
that they have had, that the satellite dish companies have had, and the
local television stations have had of trying to find a way to
accommodate people who want to be able to receive their major broadcast
networks, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, in some instances public television.
They cannot get it right now because only in major metropolitan areas
are the local television stations signals being put up on satellite.
This legislation is going to enable every single television station in
all 211 television markets in the country to have that local station
put up on satellite so that folks can get not only their major network
programming but also their local news, weather, sports, and other
information.
This will encompass more than 170 television markets that are not
going to be put up under the current legislative authority that they
now have. The major markets like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles,
here in Washington, D.C., they get it now; but for millions and
millions of American families, they will not.
But I thank the gentleman. I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation, which includes the launching of our Communities Access to
Local Television Act of 2000.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our very distinguished leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
combined District of Columbia and Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations conference report, a conference report the Republicans
decided to put together in a partisan way in the middle of the night
last night.
The provisions on the District of Columbia are fine, and we could
have supported them. But the other side insisted on putting forward a
Commerce, Justice bill without the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act
and without the bipartisan hate crimes legislation that both Houses and
Congress have supported.
This is a bill without fairness and without justice, and that is a
shame. This could have been a good bill and could have gotten strong
bipartisan support, a bill that could have lifted up millions of people
in this country.
Instead, this legislation does not include the Latino and Immigrant
Fairness Act, the only act that would fix several unfair provisions in
our immigration laws. LIFA would have afforded Central American and
other immigrants the same treatment Nicaraguans and Cubans previously
received. It would have let people stay here with their families, while
applying for an adjustment in their status. It would have updated our
laws so immigrants who came here before 1986 could stay.
But Republicans inserted watered-down language that denies parity to
Central American and other immigrants who have not had the same
opportunities to become citizens given to Nicaraguans and Cubans.
{time} 1845
It does not do enough to allow people to pay a fee and stay in the
United States with their families while applying for an adjustment in
their immigration status, and it does not let people apply for
citizenship who arrived here before 1986.
This conference report could have made an important advance in civil
rights. Instead, a small group of lawmakers decided once again to
thwart the bipartisan will of this Congress and the will of a majority
of the American people by refusing to include hate crimes legislation.
Law enforcement officers would have had the enhanced tools they need to
investigate and prosecute these awful crimes. We could have sent a
strong message that crimes committed against people simply because of
their race, gender, ability, or sexual orientation are evil and
offensive. We could have strengthened the values we as a people hold
dear: human respect, tolerance, and understanding.
Further, this conference report denies the Justice Department the
funding it needs to pursue tobacco companies in court, and it provides
inadequate language that does little to protect the privacy of Social
Security numbers and prevent them from being bought and sold. Amy Boyer
was stalked and killed by a man who purchased her Social Security
number over the Internet, and there is no reason why we cannot stop
another similar tragedy with tougher protections.
So this bill is an insult to the legislative process. The Republicans
have made no effort to address issues that would have secured
Democratic support and the President's approval. The President has said
he will veto this conference report. I urge my colleagues to reject
this legislation. Let us go back to work in a bipartisan way to resolve
these important issues. That is what the American people expect us to
do, and we should not let them down.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
[[Page H11288]]
Mr. Speaker, I am not the chairman of the authorizing committee that
writes the laws for immigration or naturalization. One would think that
this bill, from the comments of the last speaker, is the committee that
writes authorizing legislation. We are not that. We are the committee
that appropriates the funds for the various agencies that we cover.
If we were the authorizing committee, we could entertain all sorts of
authorizing legislation such as the gentleman has just mentioned. But
we have an authorizing committee, and the chairman of that subcommittee
will speak momentarily, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). He does
not like the fact that this bill, the appropriation bill, sometimes
tries to authorize in his jurisdiction.
The minority leader has just made a great case that he needs to
present to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
of the Committee on the Judiciary where those issues belong. We are the
appropriators. We are not the authorizers. Give us a break.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify that amendments
to section 424 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act are not
intended to limit the authority granted to the District of Columbia's
Water and Sewer Authority in the District of Columbia to maintain and
otherwise independently manage the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund,
create separate District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
benefits, payroll, financial, and budgetary systems, or to implement
and manage a separate procurement system. Is that the chairman's
understanding?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. The gentleman from Virginia is correct, that is my
understanding.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the chairman for his support and
cooperation.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to make a telling point.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished subcommittee chairman, after
we have seen the majority try to attach literally dozens and dozens of
authorization provisions, he now says, oh, we could not act on the
immigration problem because it is an authorizing issue. This committee
has been willing to authorize to shred privacy, but it is not willing
to authorize in order to protect human dignity. I think that is a
telling difference.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the sponsor of the three
provisions of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness proposal.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle they
continue to claim that the Democrats' Latino and Immigrant Fairness
proposal is dangerous, radical, unprecedented. It is an amnesty, they
say.
Well, where have they been? Clearly, they have forgotten American
history, the history of a Nation built by and defended by immigrants.
What is surprising is they do not even remember their own recent
Republican record.
In 1997, this Republican-led Congress did the right thing and granted
amnesty to tens of thousands of Nicaraguan and Cuban refugees authored
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). That is the same relief we
seek today for refugees who entered the U.S. from the same region for
the same reasons at the same period of time. Why can we not give to
Hondurans, Guatamalans, Salvadorans, and, yes, Haitians, the same
protections we were able to give, led by this Republican-controlled
Congress? They forget their history.
Where were they, those who claim today that this is unprecedented,
when this House voted in 1997 to instruct the conferees to extend
245(i)? I am sure the chairman remembers when we won that vote. Why did
he have that vote? Because the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), both my friends,
demanded a vote. And they lost the vote, big time. Why did they lose
the vote? Because Republicans and Democrats joined together to say
immigrant families should stay together. And then a closed-door back-
room deal killed it after we won it right here on the House floor.
And where were they when President Ronald Reagan signed a broad 1986
legalization bill? Did they protest? Did they claim he was coddling
criminal aliens? No, they honored Reagan and idolized him, even today
naming a post office for him. Not only are Latino and immigrant
fairness proposals consistent with American values, they are consistent
with policies when they serve the GOP that they have wholeheartedly
supported.
Let us do the right thing. My colleagues have done it before; let us
do it again. Name the post office for Ronald Reagan and follow the law
he signed.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would prefer that
Members remain within the time constraints on debate yielded to them.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection in the House.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee Chairs and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, for their work on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is perhaps the most notable for what is not in
the bill than perhaps what is. One of the measures that is not in it
contained a Senate provision that, under the guise of spending
restrictions, would have changed governing law and abrogated U.S.
commitments to open worldwide telecommunications markets, and it was
wisely kept out of this bill.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials of the Committee on Commerce, the absence of any legislative
riders pertaining to our Nation's securities laws was also most
appreciated. This is going to have to wait until the next legislative
session, when I hope I can work together with the chairman, the
gentleman from Kentucky, on this issue.
There are two significant matters pertaining to this bill that have
actually been considered under regular order and passed by the
Committee on Commerce and House in overwhelming margins. The first is
the Local TV Act that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) had
talked about. This measure also includes a provision that I advocated,
along with the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),
requiring an independent test of interference caused by terrestrial
video services sharing the DBS band. It is very important to determine
once and for all whether that interference causes problems with
satellite television.
Finally, the bill includes the provisions of my measure, H.R. 3439,
the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. For all those reasons and
more, I strongly support this legislation.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District of
Columbia and Commerce, Justice, State conference report for some very
parochial reasons. Specifically, I rise in support of the $1.25 billion
Federal loan guarantee that this report provides for companies who wish
to provide local satellite and cable services to our rural areas.
Earlier this year, my district received direct hits from a series of
tornadoes. More than a dozen people were killed and hundreds were left
homeless as a result of the tragedy. It has been reported that these
tornadoes were perhaps the worst in Georgia history. The outcome of
these tornadoes may not have been so devastating if my constituents
could have accessed our local weather service.
The passage of last year's Satellite Home Viewer Act did eliminate a
legal obstacle, but there are still some financial hurdles. As we know,
the satellite companies claim that they are unable to provide local
service to all 210 markets.
[[Page H11289]]
Mr. Speaker, the people in my district need to be able to access
their local channels in order to be aware of any emergencies. Today's
report will perhaps put an end to those financial hurdles that prevent
that and open up the satellite market to the majority of Americans and
make satellite and cable TV available for the local people in my area,
particularly in areas like those that were hit by the tornado in
Mitchell and Grady Counties earlier this year on February 14.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to understand that my district is one
of the many districts that cannot receive its local broadcasting. This
issue is of vital importance to my district. After the storm, I have
received numerous complaints from my constituents stating that they
were unaware of the dangerous storm and unable to properly prepare for
its arrival. If they were able to view their local stations, perhaps
some lives might have been saved.
In fact, they only plan to provide local broadcast service to the top
30 to 60 markets. The two viewing areas, of Thomasville and Albany,
located in my district are ranked 114 and 148 in the market,
respectively. Given this, my district would not receive their local
broadcasting via satellites.
Mr. Speaker, I urge immediate passage of this Conference Report.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let us find out how much time
each side has, and perhaps the Chair might share with me who has the
right to close as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has
1 minute remaining, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has the
right to close.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and myself, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman.
We understand the chairman placed $.5 million for the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China. As the gentleman knows, it will not be
operating for much of the year because we need to staff it up. I
understand the gentleman has looked at it and considers this is not a
benchmark for fiscal year 2002, but that perhaps the gentleman's staff
is in agreement that it would take approximately $1.3 million for the
upcoming fiscal year 2002.
Is my understanding correct on that matter?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman's understanding is correct.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
southwest Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I also rise in support of this conference agreement,
primarily because it contains the Local Signal Act and is the only
opportunity by which the residents of rural America and the small- and
medium-sized cities around the Nation will have the opportunity to
receive by their satellite dishes the new local-into-local television
service.
I introduced the original version of this measure with my colleague,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It serves a very urgent
local need for rural Americans, and because this conference agreement
contains that provision, I strongly urge its adoption.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
{time} 1900
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Committee on the
Judiciary. I would like to respond to the issue of the Latino
Immigration Fairness Act and the authorizing committee.
We made every effort to respond to this issue in the authorizing
committee, but we were denied by the Republican majority. I would like
to support this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation.
But I think it is important to reunite families, the same as we did for
Eastern European families a few years ago.
This legislation now is the only vehicle to be able to answer the
concerns of Haitians, Hondurans and Guatemalans and others who were
left out. We need parity.
In addition, this is the only vehicle that we can support the Hate
Crimes legislation that has been denied to many States in this country.
I think James Byrd, Jr.'s, heinous murderous deceased condition
obviously warrants us passing both the Hate Crimes legislation and, as
well, this legislation with the Immigration Fairness Act included.
I ask for my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage that this House has brought
forth the important Commerce-Justice-State Conference Report to be
voted on; yet the Republican leadership has not felt the need or
importance to include language to address the dreadful acts of hate
crimes. This move by the Republican leadership is a slap in the face to
the many people here in the United States who have historically been
subjected to hateful acts resulting in death, bodily harm, as well as
mental and physical anguish, only due to a person's race, ethnicity,
gender, age or sexual orientation.
How can we as elected representatives for the American people ignore
our duty to ensure that all people are treated equally? How can we
ignore our moral oath to protect people from hateful acts that arise
because of a person' race, ethnicity, gender, age or sexual
orientation? How can we allow hateful skeleton's of this country's past
to be revived and allowed to infect our society today. Mr. Speaker,
this chambers' silence on the need for hate crimes legislation would do
just that, and the absence of hate crimes language in the CJS
Conference Report sends the message that this country's stance on
crimes of hate is not a top priority.
This issue is very dear to me and I am ashamed that after two years
from the date of James Bryd Junior's vicious murder on a paved road in
my home State of Texas, that a Bipartisan Hate Crimes Prevention Act
has not become law.
Time and time again, I have come to the floor and asked the
Republican leadership to support meaningful hate crimes legislation. I
have introduced my own hate crimes legislation and have supported
legislation and resolutions introduced by my colleagues in both the
House and the Senate. Yet, I find myself coming before the American
people once again to compel the Republican leadership to include hate
crimes language in the CJS Conference Report in order to increase
penalties on perpetrators of hate crimes before the 106th Congress
comes to a close.
Mr. Speaker, the same tactics that have been used in the Texas State
legislature to run out the time in the legislative session to defeat
the passage of hate crimes legislation have been used here in the
United States Congress as well. When the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Act was introduced in my home State of Texas in January 1999, it was
hastily defeated in the State Senate. And when state Democrats
attempted to negotiate with Republicans in the State Senate and the
Governor's administration to get a bipartisan hate crimes bill passed,
political games were played to extend the process until the end of the
state legislative session.
As I have stated, this political ploy was not only used in my home
State of Texas, but it has been used here in both chambers of the
United States Congress as well. We have attempted to negotiate with
members of the Republican party to get hate crimes legislation passed
within the 106th Congress, however, political games and wizardry have
been used to delay the process until the congressional session comes to
an end.
I therefore, call on the Republican leadership, with the American
People as my witnesses, to once again ask for the passage of hate
crimes legislation to address senseless killings and crimes of hate and
to make a statement that the United States will no longer tolerate
these Acts.
Since James Byrd Junior's death our nation has experienced an
alarming increase in hate violence directed at men, women and even
children of all races, creeds, and colors.
Ronald Taylor traveled to the eastside of Pittsburgh, in what has
been characterized, as an act of hate violence to kill three and wound
two in a fast food restaurant. Eight weeks later, in Pittsburgh Richard
Baumhammers, armed with a .357-caliber pistol, traveled 20 miles across
the West Side of Pittsburgh where he killed five people. His shooting
victims included a Jewish women, an Indian, ``Vietnamese,'' Chinese and
several black men.
[[Page H11290]]
The decade of the 1990s saw an unprecedented rise in the number of
hate groups preaching violence and intolerance, with more than 50,000
hate crimes reported during the years 1991 through 1997. The summer of
1999 was dubbed ``the summer of hate'' as each month brought forth
another appalling incident, commencing with a three-day shooting spree
aimed at minorities in the Midwest and culminating with an attack on
mere children in California. From 1995 through 1999, there has been 206
different arson or bomb attacks on churches and synagogues throughout
the United States--an average of one house of worship attacked every
week.
Like the rest of the nation, some in Congress have been tempted to
dismiss these atrocities as the anomalous acts of lunatics, but news
accounts of this homicidal fringe are merely the tip of the iceberg.
The beliefs they act on are held by a far larger, though less visible,
segment of our society. These atrocities illustrate the need for
continued vigilance and the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
It is long past the time for Congress to pass a comprehensive law
banning such atrocities. It is a federal crime to hijack an automobile
or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a federal crime to drag a man
to death because of his race or to hang a person because of his or her
sexual orientation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national
conscience and they should be subject to federal law enforcement
assistance and prosecution.
Therefore, I would urge my fellow members of the United States
Congress and the American people to be counted among those who will
stand for justice in this country for all Americans and nothing else.
We must address the problem of hate crimes before the 106th Congress
convenes its legislative business.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished minority ranking
member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, just one other point on this bill. I find it ironic that
the only dollar item in this bill over which there is a dispute is the
provision which prevents funding for the Government to proceed with a
suit against the tobacco companies for past losses to the Federal
Treasury due to the use of tobacco.
I find that ironic because that small amount of money that the
President had asked for could have the potential of bringing billions
of dollars into the Treasury to help us pay for the cost of veterans'
medical care and to help us pay for the cost of Medicare in general. It
just seems to me that is an incredibly short-sighted decision to make.
All I would say, in summary, is that the main reason to oppose this
bill is that it should not have been brought to the floor in the first
place in the shape it is in today. We are trying to resolve our
differences and end this session. Instead, this bill exacerbates our
differences and extends the session.
I do not see how that is constructive. I do not see how that gets our
work done. This is a dead-end bill. It is going nowhere. If the Senate
passes it, which I doubt, the President most certainly will veto it.
All it means is that we have together with what the House has done on
the tax bill wasted a full day that could have been used to reconcile
differences rather than further emphasize them.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the D.C. bill is a good bill. It should be going to the
White House tonight to get it signed.
I applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for the compromise
that has brought us to this point on the D.C. bill. I regret that the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) cannot be here
to express the same sentiment.
The problem is it has been attached with the Commerce-State-Justice
bill, of which many provisions are terrific. It could be a very good
bill. But as the President has said in his veto message, there are some
things that could and should have been changed.
One of them, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said,
would allow the Justice Department to pursue litigation to recover
billions of dollars that have been lost to the Medicare-Medicaid
program particularly through tobacco-related illness.
Another is hate crimes legislation. Another is the anti-environmental
rider that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has spoken
to.
Another is a very troubling concern with regard to privacy protection
of Social Security numbers. That language, I think, when it was
revealed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), shocked many
Members that that kind of language could be in this bill. But what we
have spoken about primarily is the fact that the Latino Immigrant
Fairness Act is not included in this bill. This is the last appropriate
vehicle for this legislation to be included.
The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of families who
this country has discriminated against unfairly that need this
legislation. I say discriminated against because all we had to do was
to treat all Central and South American refugees in the same way we
treated Cuban refugees and Nicaraguan refugees. It does not matter
whether they are escaping from a right-wing dictatorship or a left-wing
dictatorship. If they need refuge in this country, we ought to treat
them all the same. But instead, the language in this bill would
perpetuate the current patchwork of contradictory and discriminatory
policies enacted by this Congress.
In fact, we have enacted a mean-spirited law that vacated Federal
lawsuits on behalf of those wrongfully denied legalization in the
1980s.
What we are talking about are families who have been here for more
than 15 years who have been working hard, who have been paying taxes,
who have been contributing to their community. Very few are on any form
of welfare. They, in fact, are contributing so much to our economy,
doing the kind of labor that a whole lot of Americans would not want to
do and certainly not the wages that they have been getting, that if
they were deported, it would cripple our economy in many parts of this
Nation.
I know in my own district, if we deported these people that have been
contributing so much to our economy, it would cripple many sectors of
our industries. The fact is they are building our buildings. They are
helping to repair our streets. Many are cleaning homes. They are doing
anything they have to do to work hard to be able to provide for their
families. They are Americans.
And who are we to say? There is not a Native American here among the
Congress. We are all immigrants. This is a Nation of immigrants. We are
talking about people who have come to this country because they believe
in the American dream. They have been working hard. They have been
paying taxes. They have been contributing to our economy and our
society. They are people of faith, faith in their God, faith in this
country, and faith that we will not discriminate against them.
So this is our last opportunity. That is why we made such a big deal
about including this legislation. It should have been included. Because
it was not, we have to urge a no vote on this bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) chairman of Subcommittee on
Immigration Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I also yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith) is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my two
friends, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the immigration provisions in this bill unite immigrant
families and reward those who play by the rules. This policy is pro-
family and pro-immigrant. The bill speeds up the admission of immigrant
spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents so they can
join their husbands and wives and mothers and fathers who are already
in the United States. Their wait now can be up to 6 years, and we want
to shorten that.
Another provision responds to one group seeking amnesty who deserves
our help, those who met the conditions set out for amnesty under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and who may have wrongly
been denied legal status by the INS. This bill would allow those aliens
to apply again.
[[Page H11291]]
Mr. Speaker, the White House wants to give amnesty to people who came
to the United States illegally, who promised to return to their home
countries, and failed to do so. We learned from the 1986 amnesty that
amnesty does not end our illegal immigration problem. It actually
precipitates even more illegal immigration, as individuals are
encouraged in the belief that if they can just elude the Border Patrol
and stand underground for a few years, they will eventually get amnesty
themselves. It is no surprise illegal immigration doubled after the
1986 amnesty.
As for the White House proposal, let us do talk about fairness.
Central Americans already have received what they demanded in 1997.
After the 1996 law changed the requirements of suspension of
deportation, Salvadorans and Guatemalans asked that they be able to
pursue suspension of deportation using the pre-1996 standards. That is
exactly what we gave them in 1997.
In addition, Honduras did not even have a civil war but has had a
democratically elected government since 1982. Some Hondurans are
currently in the United States with temporary protected status due to
Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Their temporary status should not become
permanent. Otherwise Congress might as well turn the temporary
protective status into a permanent amnesty program.
I will say to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez),
who mentioned my name a few minutes ago, that, number one, I was not in
Congress in 1986 or I would have opposed the 1986 amnesty. And second,
that there is a big difference between those who suffered under a
communist totalitarian regime the U.S. government opposed, such as in
Cuba and Nicaragua and fled the country, and those who left the country
whether it was a government we supported, such as in El Salvador and
Guatemala.
The administration wants to include a provision that allows illegal
aliens to legalize their status by paying a fine of $1,000. This is
clearly an incentive for illegal immigration. Allowing illegal aliens
to adjust status in the U.S. would reward them for violating the law
and would serve as an open invitation for those waiting in line to
enter the U.S. illegally.
Hispanics across America agree with us. A recent poll by the ``San
Jose Mercury News'' found that three times as many Hispanic voters feel
the Government is not doing enough about illegal immigration as think
the Government is doing too much.
Mr. Speaker, the White House wants to reward law-breakers, which
increases illegal immigration. They would give amnesty to as many as
2.5 million people, including dependents, who entered the United States
illegally as recently as 1995.
Mr. Speaker, let us unite families, reward those who play by the
rules, and give those who are wrongly denied legal status in 1996 an
opportunity to reply. Supporting this bill does just that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I was reminded by the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), a few minutes
ago that if anyone is in doubt about whether to support this bill, they
should give their case worker back home in their district office a call
who works on immigration matters and they will tell the Member just how
beneficial this bill is.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my intention to
vote for this agreement, despite a significant shortcoming. I will
support it because this legislation contains important funding for
embassy security, counterterrorism activities, gun law enforcement,
additional border patrol agents, and the COPS Program. I am the author
of legislation to reauthorize the COPS Program, and the conference
report provides $1 billion for the program in Fiscal Year 2001, a $437
million increase over last year. Included in this funding is an
additional $75 million for gun crimes prosecutions in high violence
areas, as well as $140 million for a new COPS technology initiative.
However, I do have serious concerns about provisions in this package
that could weaken protections regarding the sale of Social Security
numbers over the Internet. I am the cosponsor of bipartisan
legislation, H.R. 4857, the Privacy and Identity Protection Act of
2000, that addresses the fraudulent misuse of Social Security numbers.
This type of corrective language is what should be a part of this
package. President Clinton has threatened to veto this legislation
because of this deficiency, and if he follows through on that action,
we should take that opportunity to strike these provisions from the
conference report.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I have recently become even
more sensitized to the needs and operations of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is
underfunded and in many areas there is mismanagement and chaos.
I have also had the opportunity to speak with Members of Congress
about the INS and have listened to their concerns. The concerns that I
hear over and over again from my constituents and from other Members of
Congress is that something must be done about the backlog of casework
within the INS districts offices.
I am gratified that $4.8 billion was allocated for Enforcement and
Border Affairs for the INS, which is 13% more than FY 2000 funding
which will allow for the hiring of additional border patrol agents.
As this body well knows, the 1996 Immigration Law authorized a total
of five thousand additional Border Patrol agents, to be added at the
rate of one thousand per fiscal year from 1997 to 2001. INS did not
request any additional agents in its proposed budget for FY 2000. This
is greatly due to the lucrative job market and the low unemployment
rate. The average salary for a starting Border Patrol Agent is at a GS-
5 level which is $22,000 per year.
Last year, Congressman Reyes and I introduced H.R. 1881, the Border
Patrol Retention and Recruitment Act. The Border Patrol is not able to
recruit enough agents to meet this authorizing level. When the
appropriators keep allocating each year an additional $100 million each
year for the INS to hire 1000 additional agents, and the INS is unable
to recruit these agents, then what the Congress is doing is leading the
horse to the water but not helping him drink. In the CJS bill last year
language was added that raised the staring salary level from GS-5 level
to GS-7 level, to slightly over $30,000 and that was very good.
Lastly, the Congress needs to continue to fund the INS with the
necessary monies for them to decrease their citizenship and
adjudication backlogs. There is not sufficient money in this Conference
bill to do so.
I am also very disappointed that the $20 million for the PowerUp
program is not in the bill. The PowerUp empowers the Attorney General
to make grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the purpose
of funding effective after-school technology programs, such as PowerUp,
in order to bridge the digital divide in our nation's communities.
The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have 2,300 clubs throughout all
50 states and building technology centers and providing integrated
content and full-time staffing at those centers in the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America nationwide will help foster education, job training,
and alternative to crime for at-risk youth.
Bringing PowerUp into the Boys and Girls Clubs of America will be an
effective way to ensure that our youth have a safe, crime-free
environment in which to learn the technological skills they need to
close the divide between young people who have access to computer-based
information and technology-related skills and those who do not.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R.
4942, the D.C./Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for FY
2001.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report takes great strides to assist our
law enforcement officers in the battle against illegal drugs. This bill
will provide millions of dollars in assistance to local law enforcement
organizations across our nation as they fight to eliminate drugs from
our communities. One of the drugs that has become an increasing threat
to all of our communities is methamphetamine. This drug is a danger not
only to those who use it, but also to those who reside near areas where
it is produced. The production of methamphetamine produces highly toxic
fumes that can be lethal if inhaled.
In my home state of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Bureau of
Investigation has been combating this drug at every step. Meth lab
eradication and cleanup is dangerous to our law enforcement officers
and to the surrounding community, and expensive to enforce. Mr. Speaker
this fine piece of legislation will provide the Oklahoma State Bureau
of Investigation with the resources to win this battle against a truly
devastating drug.
Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4942, the D.C./
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Conference Report.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
important bill. In particular, this legislation includes important
language that will extend the benefits of a bill passed nearly a year
ago to all Americans, instead of those in our most populated urban
[[Page H11292]]
centers. That bill, the Satellite Home Viewer Act, was designed to
address a problem experienced by thousands of Americans who are
frustrated that they either could not receive their local network
signal or had to receive a poor quality local network signal through a
rooftop antenna rather than receive a network signal through their
satellite provider. The bill addressed this by allowing direct
broadcast satellite providers to immediately begin retransmitting local
television broadcast signals into the broadcast station's area.
Consumers across the country expressed their support for this
legislation and the availability of `local-into-local' technology. I
know my office received thousands of letters and calls from
constituents concerned about this issue. This new law allows satellite
providers to become more effective competitors to cable operators who
have been able to provide local over-the-air broadcast stations to
their subscribers for years. It will also benefit American consumers in
markets where local TV via satellite is made available by offering them
full service digital television at an affordable price.
More importantly, these consumers will benefit from local news,
weather reports, information such as natural disasters or community
emergencies, local sports, politics and election information as well as
other information that is vital to the integrity of communities across
the country. Local TV via satellite is already available to satellite
subscribers in America's 20 largest television markets. In these
markets, DirecTV and Echostar, the existing satellite platform
providers, have begun retransmission of affiliates of the ABC, CBS,
NBC, and Fox broadcast networks. DirecTV and Echostar have also
announced their intention to begin retransmission of local TV stations
in an additional 20 or 30 television markets over the next few years.
Ultimately, the two existing satellite platform providers will
provide local TV via satellite to households in most if not all of the
50 largest television markets in the United States. However, there are
211 television markets in the United States, and in excess of 100
million U.S. TV households.
Unfortunately, if matters are left solely to the initiative of the
existing satellite platform providers, more than 50 percent of existing
satellite subscribers, over 6 million households, will continue to be
deprived of their local TV stations; more than 60 percent of existing
commercial television stations, over 1,000, will not be available via
satellite; and more than 30 million U.S. TV households will remain
beyond the reach of local TV via satellite. Put another way, local TV
via satellite will not be available in 27 States.
So while the law enacted last fall has eliminated the legal barriers
to delivery of local TV via satellite, it alone will not assure
delivery of local TV via satellite to the majority of local TV stations
and satellite subscribers. For that reason I have joined with my
colleagues in the House to introduce legislation that will assure that
all Americans, not just those in the most profitable urban markets, can
receive their local TV signals in a way that provides local information
in a competitive environment for consumers.
This legislation we are considering today represents a carefully
negotiated compromise between versions passed by the House and the
Senate earlier this year. I want to express my appreciation to members
of both bodies and from both parties for their willingness to work
together to reach this agreement. Like the original House bill, the
substitute authorizes the administrator of the Rural Utilities Service,
with the input of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, to administer loan guarantees not exceeding $1.25
billion for providing local broadcast TV signals in unserved and
underserved markets.
The loan guarantees will be approved by a board consisting of the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve. This is a change from the House-passed bill, which did
not include the Federal Reserve Chairman on the board. Like the House-
passed bill, the loan guarantee may not exceed 80 percent of a loan,
and the board may not approve a loan guarantee for a project that is
primarily designed to serve one or more of the to 40 markets. The bill
also retains House-passed restrictions on which lending institutions
can qualify for loan guarantees. In addition, the bill retains a House-
passed prohibition on the use of the loan guarantee for the acquisition
of spectrum. Finally, like the House bill, the board is directed to
give priority consideration first to unserved areas, then to
underserved areas.
Unserved areas are defined as areas outside Grade B where there is no
access to local signals from a for-profit multichannel video provider.
Underserved areas are defined as those areas outside Grade A where
there is no more than one for-profit multichannel video provider. The
priority language has been modified slightly to clarify that the board
must seek a balance in approving projects that serve both unserved and
underserved areas.
The bill includes language from the Senate-passed version that
encourages the delivery of Internet and weather service signals, but it
has been clarified to ensure that the primary purpose of the bill is
the delivery of local broadcast signals. The bill also deletes language
in the House bill allowing the RUS Administrator (rather than the
board) to approve and administer guarantees for loans of less than $20
million. The bill retains limitations on the use of the loan guarantees
by cable provides in their franchise areas, but modifies the language
to ensure that in areas where the incumbent cable provider is not
required to provide service, the bill remains technology neutral. The
bill also includes two technical changes to the credit risk premium and
administrative fee language. Finally, the bill removes two unrelated
provisions included in the House-passed bill related to translator
services and copyright must-carry laws.
In addition, this compromise incorporates several suggestions made by
the Administration and the Office of Management and Budget. These
changes include: (1) the elimination of language allowing the loans to
be split, which would allowed the unguaranteed portion to be sold in
the market; (2) the elimination of language allowing the guaranteed
loan to be less than fully collateralized; (3) several technical
corrections related to the Federal Credit Reform Act; and (4) the
inclusion of language requiring that the board adhere to the
Administrative Procedures Act. All of these changes will strengthen the
protection of taxpayer interests and prevent unwarranted increases in
the cost of the program to the Federal government.
Mr. Speaker, legislation similar to this bill passed the House by a
vote of 375-37 and passed the Senate by a vote 97-0 earlier this year.
While we were unable to convene a formal conference, this agreement we
are considering today is a bipartisan compromise that we can all be
proud of. In particular, I want to thank Senator Gramm and Senator
Burns for their help on reaching this agreement. Senator Burns
represents the State of Montana, a rural area that is vitally impacted
by this legislation. Both he and Senator Gramm are to be commended for
their leadership in getting this legislation passed through the United
States Senate. Senator Lott, Senator Stevens, Senator Ashcroft, Senator
Grams, Senator Thomas, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator Hollings,
and Minority Leader Daschle are also to be commended for their hard
work in negotiating this agreement.
The bill is crucial for Americans in rural and smaller markets who
rely on their local television stations for news, politics, weather,
sports, and emergency information. Local television is often the only
lifeline folks have in cases of natural disasters such as hurricanes,
tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, or flooding. The bill's language to
encourage the delivery of local television signals to these
constituents in America will not only benefit consumers, it will save
lives.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank several individuals in the
House, most importantly my colleague from my adjoining district in
Virginia, Mr. Boucher, whose leadership has been absolutely vital. He
too has a district like mine that badly needs this legislation, but he
too recognizes the importance of this to all of America. Mrs. Emerson,
Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Shimkus have also been strong
supporters of this bill.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, the
chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee, who has also worked
tirelessly to see that this legislation becomes law this year. I also
want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, and the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, from the committee on the Judiciary.
I especially want to thank the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey, for his
dedicated work in forging this compromise. Finally, from the Committee
on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, the gentlelady
from North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Stenholm, have all provided valuable support for this legislation. I
thank them all.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the combined D.C./Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations Conference Report.
Attaching the DC appropriations to the larger Commerce--Justice--
State bill once again does a great disservice to the people of the
District. The DC portion of the conference report is a great
improvement over the version passed earlier by the House. It includes
provisions that increase funding for two projects that I have strongly
supported: $25 million for the New York Avenue Metro Station, and $3
million for environmental clean-up of Popular Point along the Anacostia
River. Both projects are top priorities for residents and the City to
help spur new economics development activity for the District.
Combining it with the larger Commerce-Justice-State bill, which
contains provisions wholly unacceptable to the President, means that
once again the District is
[[Page H11293]]
being held hostage to Congressional tactics. It is unnecessary and it
is wrong!
This bill fails to include critical provisions that would bring
fairness and justice to our nation's immigration laws. Last month, I
joined 154 other House Democrats in sending a letter to President
Clinton promising to sustain a veto of this bill should the Republican
majority fail the Hispanic community yet again. While Republicans speak
of compassion, their actions tear families apart and support
inequalities in our laws. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness act (LIFA)
provisions are critically-needed pieces of legislation that would bring
fairness to families and individuals who call America home, and who
have made significant social, economic, and political contributions to
our nation.
I am cosponsoring legislation calling for all three of LIFA's
provision: to allow those who qualify for permanent residency to
complete the final stages of their application in the U.S. rather than
returning to their country of origin; to provide Central American and
Caribbean immigrants who have been here since 1995 the right to apply
for permanent residency (as is the case for Cubans and Nicaraguans);
and to update the ``registry date'' which would allow immigrants here
since 1986 to apply for permanent residency. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership will not permit a vote on our legislation and
attaching it to appropriations legislation is the only way this
Congress can provide justice to these families.
I am also disappointed about the failure of this conference report to
include the hate crimes enhancement law as the Administration had
requested. Along with more than 190 Members of the House from both
parties, I cosponsored the legislation to extend current federal hate
crimes law to cover violence motivated by prejudice against the
victim's sexual orientation, gender or liability. It will not become
law this year because Republican leaders have shown once again that
they are opposed to passing the legislation in any form. We have a long
way to go on to ensure the safety on all citizens. I will continue to
support efforts to fight hate crimes and discrimination.
This legislation also does a disservice to the environment. Section
636 of the bill would prevent the Cuyahoga Valley National Park from
gaining stronger clean air protections. Provisions in the bill also
allow Coastal Impact Assistant funds to be used for environmentally
damaging projects and activities, making a mockery of ongoing efforts
to restore our endangered coastal areas.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Section 1012 of the
Launching Our Communities Access to Local Television Act of 2000, Title
X of the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related
agencies appropriations conference report. Section 1012 provides for
independent testing of terrestrial technologies in the 12 GHz band. My
support for this section is conditioned on the understanding that this
provision will not add any delay to any current FCC proceeding.
The Satellite Home Viewer's Improvement Act (``SHVIA''), which we
passed a year ago, required the FCC to act on applications to provide
local television service in unserved and underserved areas. We gave the
FCC one year to make its determinations regarding these applications,
which at that time had already been pending before the FCC for nearly
one year. I am highly aware of the need for local television and
broadband services that can be provided by new terrestrial wireless
technologies. The deadline for FCC action under SHVIA is fast
approaching and I expect the FCC to act on the applications by November
29, 2000 as required. The residents of my rural district have waited
too long for service that matches that which is available in our
nation's more populated areas.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Commerce, Justice, State and District of Columbia Appropriations
conference report.
In particular, this bill blatantly fails to address our nation's
outstanding immigration issues.
During the Reagan years, we supported wars in many Latin American
countries.
Thousands fled this violence.
While many people have found sanctuary in the United States, America
has not lived up to its commitment to provide resident status to these
refugees. We made promises that we have not fulfilled.
In fact, there are over 100,000 immigration cases that remain
unresolved from the Reagan-Bush era.
These cases are nearly 20 years old and have left many immigrants in
legal limbo.
They have been denied expedited status because they did not come from
the ``right'' countries.
It is past time to correct the unfair and unequal treatment among
Central American, Latin American, Carribean and African refugees.
Individuals and families who now have deeply imbedded roots in the
United States must be given residency status.
We are not, as some have charged, giving blanket amnesty to hundreds
of thousands of illegal immigrants.
Those people have played by the rules and they deserve fairness and
justice.
Immigrants are hardworking and have helped our country propser. They
exemplify ``family values''.
In my district and throughout America, the immigrant community has
made significant contributions from which we all benefit.
We must not shut our doors on them.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference report.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in what
the Republican leadership brought to floor in the form and guise of the
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations. As Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I am mostly concerned about the
Latino Immigration Fairness Act. (LIFA) The phrase ``compassionate
conservatism'', has very hollow meaning, if you just talk the talk and
not walk the walk. This LIFA proposal is the modern day civil rights
issue of our time, and just 12 days to election day, the Republicans
are thumbing their noses at immigrants who have contributed to our
society and are trying to play by the rules. I say not deal to this
proposal, and I urge a no vote.
This involves amnesty for immigrants who have paid their dues and
have been in this country since 1986, parity for Liberians,
Guatemanlans, Haitains, and Hondurans, and restoring Section 245(i),
which allows immigrants to adjust their illegal status, pay a fee, and
remain in this country with their spouses and children. These are
reasonable proposals, and the Republican leadership has a blind eye for
fairness, for justice, and equity.
The Republican proposal to provide relief to only 400,000 immigrants
who were unable to take advantage of the 1986 law for those entering
the country before 1982 is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it
leaves and locks too many people out. This is a proposal that is thinly
veiled as an open door, but it really is a feeble attempt to play up to
the Hispanic vote during the political season.
The Republican legislation is a piecemeal correction of the flawed
implementation of the 1986 legalization program. Basically, those
individuals who sought the counsel of a specific lawyer and filed suit
with him are protected, while countless others are left out. Of those
people who are covered in the flawed proposal, less than 40% are
expected to prevail. If the GOP acknowledges that the 1986 law was not
implemented correctly, they should try to right the wrong entirely, not
pick some winners and losers based on what law firm they signed up to
represent them.
Also, it is important to understand that this ``amnesty program'' in
fact is just a long overdue update in the registry provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The registry provision gives
immigrants who have been here without proper documents an opportunity
to adjust to permanent status if they have been here for a long enough
time and have nothing in their background that would disqualify them
from immigrant status. The legislation would just update the cutoff
date for registry which is now set at 1972.
Then there is Juan Gonzalez who has been working for a construction
company in Houston, Texas for more than 13 years. Recently he lost his
job because he was not able to present his employer a renewed
Employment Authorization. Since then his family is living a nightmare.
Juan and his wife Luisa are having problems and close to a divorce.
They lost their home and rented a 2-bedroom apartment. Unfortunately,
their children are paying the consequences.
We also need to remain ever vigilant on NACARA parity. This would
address an injustice in the provisions of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act of 1997 (``NACARA''). NACARA currently
provides qualified Cubans and Nicaraguans an opportunity to become
lawful permanent residents of the United States. The proposed
legislation would extend the same benefits to eligible nationals of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. The bill that the
Republicans have brought to the floor has completely left NACARA parity
out. I say no deal, and a no vote.
Like Nicaraguans and Cubans, many Salvadorans, Guatemalans,
Hondurans, and Haitians fled human rights abuses or unstable political
and economic conditions in the 1980s and 1990s. The United States has a
strong foreign policy interest in providing the same treatment to these
similarly situated people. In addition, returning migrants to these
countries would place significant demands on their fragile economic and
political systems.
Like Senator Jack Reed, I have worked very hard to ensure that the
10,000 Liberian nationals who have been living in the United States
since the mid-1980's and have significantly contributed to the American
economy are not deported. This legislation should also include these
Liberian nations.
[[Page H11294]]
If the Latino Immigrant Fairness Act is not enacted, hundreds of
thousands of people will be forced to abandon their homes, will have to
separate from their families, and return to countries where they no
longer have ties.
The inclusion of the Latino Immigrant Fairness provisions would
evidence our commitment to fair and even-handed treatment of nations
from these countries and to the strengthening of democracy and economic
stability among important neighbors.
The Republican proposal creates a ``V'' visa for people waiting in
the family backlogs, but not all, including US citizens. This
counterproposal treats the family members of some legal permanent
residents better than US citizens. The GOP proposal leaves out US
citizens applying for their children over the age of 21. Ironically,
the GOP fails to help even United States citizens seeking to reunite
with their spouses and children if the spouse of the child fell out of
status for six months or more. In contrast, the Latino Immigrant
Fairness Act 245(i) proposal would cover all people in the pipeline to
becoming legal equally. I say no deal and a no vote.
The Republicans are failing to correct their flawed legislation of
1997 and 1998. It was the Republicans who passed piecemeal programs in
1997 and 1998 for some refugees. These flaws failed to correct years of
uneven treatment to legitimate refugees from Central America, Haiti,
and does nothing for Liberian nationals. It is baffling why today the
Republicans are now turning their backs on the LIFA proposal for long
time refugees, that have been in the U.S. for years, worked hard and
paid their taxes when a few short years ago they advanced these same
proposals.
In conclusion, there is not compassion here, Mr. Speaker. Congress
should stop trying to trade some deserving immigrant groups for others,
and move to help all deserving immigrants willing to play by the rules,
pay taxes, and work hard in the United States.
I say no deal and a not vote. Send this bill to 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, and the President will send it right back.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr.Speaker, I rise to join my Democratic colleagues
to express my outrage at the ommission of immigration fairness from the
Commerce--Justice Appropriation Bill.
I am a Caribbean American and I am calling on my colleagues to vote
against this bill because it fails to right the wrongs that are being
perpetrated against Haitians and other people from our region, Central
Americans, Liberians and others.
I also think that it is shameful that once again the people of the
District of Columbia, the nation's capital and our home away from home,
have their budget bogged down with this bill that includes a poison
pill that ought to kill it here, but which certainly will be vetoed at
the White House. Why can't we do the right thing on this?
People of color across the country and around the world cannot seem
to get fairness under this Republican Congress. District residents,
Caribbean people, Central Americans, Liberians and others deserve
fairness just like you and I.
Do the right thing. Vote no on this until we get justice in the
Commerce, Justice and Appropriations bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my compliments to Chairman Istook
for the time and energy he and his staff have once again devoted to
reviewing the D.C. budget and bringing this bill to the floor.
Just a few years ago, the D.C. government faced a financial crisis of
epic proportions. The situation was dire: the District could not
deliver basic services, and there was very real concern that it would
run out of cash to pay its debt service and meet its payroll. Today,
the city's population is stabilizing, the real estate market is up,
suburban residents are making more leisure trips into the city, and
jobs have increased dramatically.
Next year the Control Board will go into a dormant state, as
anticipated in legislation we passed in 1995. The city has balanced its
budget for a fourth straight year and its leaders are showing, with
only a handful of exceptions, that they are focused on fostering
economic growth and delivering basic services. With the guidance of
this Congress, D.C.'s elected officials implemented tax cuts and backed
the procurement and regulatory reforms that have spawned the
renaissance at the Nation's Capital. As an editorial in The Washington
Times said just a few weeks ago, the face of D.C. is, indeed, changing.
This budget goes a long way toward continuing the tremendous strides
made in the Nation's Capitol over the past six years. It funds a wide
number of programs that will greatly enhance the quality of life for
D.C. residents and those who visit and work in this wonderful city--
from enhanced resources for foster care, drug treatment and public
education to money to clean up the Anacostia River. This legislation
provides full and vital federal funding to construct a Metrorail
station on New York Avenue. There are funds for a number of programs to
bolster opportunities for the city's youth population, including
$500,000 for character education and $250,000 for youth mentoring
programs.
And there's much more: $1 million for the Washington Interfaith
Network for affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and another
$250,000 for new initiatives to battle homelessness. $6 million to
cover the city's costs associated with the 2001 Presidential
Inauguration. $250,000 for Mayor Williams to simplify personnel
practices, money that will allow the city to build on the many
improvements already underway in the area of management reform.
I am very pleased that the conference report fully funds the D.C.
College Access Program--a program created by legislation I authored
that levels the playing field for D.C. students by allowing them to
attend state colleges and universities at in-state rates. This funding
ensures that the program will continue to grow, so no students are
denied the opportunity offered to those who attend high school in each
of the 50 states.
And finally, I am overjoyed that there is language in this conference
report that transfers two school sites in Lorton to Fairfax County, at
no charge, to address the critical need for new schools there. The
legislation includes important language that facilitates the land
transfer.
I commend Chairman Istook for this forward-looking spending plan, a
budget that ensures the District's `rebirth' will continue. I am proud
to have played a part in this city's turnaround these past six years,
and I want to thank the fellow members of my subcommittee, both
Republicans and Democrats, for the work they have done to get the
District back on its feet. I wish Mayor Williams and the City Council
the best of luck in the future. This city is on the right track, and
it's in good hands.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing the most minimal
help to people of color and immigrants, the Republicans have shown
themselves to be colder than ice.
Twice the House and Senate have passed hate crime prevention
legislation to ensure that crimes committed based on race and bigotry
are fully investigated and prosecuted. But when it comes to basic
fairness for people of color or different sexual orientation,
Republicans are not compassionate conservatives and they are not
inclusive.
Similarly, thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras,
Guatemala, Haiti and Liberia fled their war ravaged countries in the
1980s and early 1990s. In 1997, the Republicans decided to give amnesty
to Cubans and Nicaraguan refugees who had the right political influence
at the time. Despite any objective basis for distinguishing their
situation, the Republicans refused to help refugees from Central
America and Haiti. It is time we provide legal parity for these
refugees who are hard working, tax paying, important members of our
communities.
The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is a straight forward bill to
keep families together, stabilize those who have been here for over a
decade and make our immigration polices simple and fair. Yet, it is not
in this bill.
The GOP wants to give people of color and immigrants crumbs from the
table. This bill exposes the Republicans' true colors.
I have news for you--the President will not let the congress leave
without a Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. He will veto this bill,
and Mr. President, the Democrats have the votes to sustain it.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the House today not only adds insult to the
injury that the District's budget has to go to someone else to be
passed. The House today penalizes the District in the bond market and
adds costs of incalculable dollars in delay and duplication.
From the start of the fiscal year, this bill is now four weeks
overdue. More than two weeks ago, we finished a very difficult process.
The Mayor and the City Council members had been asking me, ``Is it
over? How soon?'' And I replied, ``soon.'' Ernest Istook and I then
negotiated our way through the last stages of the process and shook
hands on an agreement. Both of us felt a sense of accomplishment. Then
there was only silence. I want to thank Chairman Ernest Istook for his
service, for always working hard and for working with me. I want to
thank Ranking Member Jim Moran for his hard work on this bill. Both
deserve better than this. District residents certainly deserve better.
I understand that the D.C. conference report was held for a purpose,
to carry another bill. Today we see that the conference report was held
for no good purpose, because the bill it will carry will be vetoed. I
am told that the Senate has problems with the Commerce, Justice, State
bill on tobacco and gun control. Other controversial provisions include
a census privacy violation and an objectionable immigration provision.
However, this body needs to understand what damage the delay in
passing the D.C.
[[Page H11295]]
appropriation does to the District. New money for public schools,
including new textbooks and teacher pay raises--cannot begin. New money
for in-home care for seniors and the disabled--cannot begin. Funding
increases for Foster Care and Child and Family Services, which will
reduce caseloads by hiring more social workers--cannot begin. In
addition, 175 new police officers in this high-crime city cannot be
hired; 88 new firefighters cannot be hired; five new charter schools,
what the Congress most wanted, cannot be funded; and $4.5 million for
school recreation centers, to get our kids off the streets during the
high crime hours between 3 and 6, is on hold.
Thhis is what this House is doing to the District of Columbia today.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise opposed to the Commerce-
Justice-State conference report. I am opposed to this conference report
because it fails to include the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, also
known as LIFA. I am greatly disappointed that the Republican leadership
has failed to support Latino issues as they once claimed they would.
In 1996, the immigration reform law unfairly separated families and
created additional obstacles for hardworking immigrants whose dream was
to become productive American citizens. These provisions imposed under
the Republican leadership of this House, forced many immigrants into a
state of limbo.
Prospective immigrants already in the United States, in the process
of obtaining their green cards were and still are forced to leave the
country and separate from their families, many for as long as ten years
before being allowed to return to the United States. These individuals
have been wrongly denied the legal status they rightfully deserved
since the 1980's.
The goal of immigration law in this country should be to keep
families together and allow productive citizens who work hard and play
by the rules to keep their current jobs, keep living in their current
neighborhoods and keep paying their paying their taxes by allowing them
as opportunity to become United States citizens.
The lives of real people are at stake. Throughout this election
cycle, the Republican Party has made claims that they are obviously not
truly committed to. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is an
important piece of legislation because it effects the lives of our
neighbors, our friends, and in essence the people that help this great
nation function each day.
Today, I join over 150 of my colleagues in opposition of the
exclusion of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and who are also
committed to supporting the President's proposed veto of the C-J-S
conference report. We can no longer continue to ignore these unjust and
biased immigration laws.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of
conflict diamonds. Section 406 of this bill seeks to eliminate the
problem. Though I support this provision, I regret that an alternative
that I negotiated and all sides agreed would be preferable was not
included in the conference report.
As our colleagues know, many Members of this House are gravely
concerned about the role diamonds--a symbol of love and commitment to
many Americans--are playing in some of the wars in Africa. Just this
week, the Catholic church reported rebel attacks on diamond fields in
Angola that left scores of innocent civilians dead or injured.
In Sierra Leone, Angola, the Demorcratic Republic of Congo, and until
recently in Liberia, rebels are waging war not for ethnic or religious
or political reasons--but solely for greed. Rag-tag gangs transformed
themselves into well-equipped armies by seizing diamond-rich land,
driving people living there out of their homes or killing them, and
then selling the gems they stole to an industry that couldn't be
bothered to do anything about a trade they knew was devastating. In
all, more than two million people have dies in these diamond wars.
Today, the industry is playing catch-up and has come up with a
solution to this problem. For years it has ignored rebels' role in
overthrowing a democratic government; in committing rape, murder, and
mutilation on an unprecedented scale; and in violating United Nations
embargoes on both diamonds from one of these countries, and arms to all
of them. Over the same period, the diamond industry has raked in
phenomenal profits: last year alone, the industry leader posted in 89
percent increase in profits. Meanwhile, it has contributed only
minimally and to just a few of the African countries whose resources
provide these profits. With economies ruined by war and few investments
in peace, these countries' young citizens have few alternatives to
careers that begin as child soldiers.
Last year, Congressman Frank Wolf and I visited Sierra Leone. We met
hundreds of victims of that diamond war in Freetown's amputee camp,
people who lost a hand, or a leg, or both arms, or an ear to rebel's
machete. We heard of the sick ``games'' rebels played:
Determining whether to leave a victim with ``short sleeves'' or
``long sleeves,'' depending on what slip of paper he or she drew from a
bag.
Betting on the sex of a fetus, and then cutting open the pregnant
mother to see who won.
We met a young teenager made pregnant by rape and left to care for a
rebel's child with two stumps where her arms once hung. We spoke with a
man whose right hand was cut off because he was a student, and another
who lost both hands because he was a driver. We saw an adorable toddler
whose arm was chopped off when she was just two-and-half, and dozens of
school-aged children who suffered a similar fate.
We heard again and again that this butchery was rebels' way of
punishing innocent civilians for voting in Sierra Leone's first
election--a psychopathic retort to the winner's slogan, ``given us a
hand.'' We left the country sick at heart and determined to do anything
we could to help.
Sierra Leone is a country founded in hope by escaped slaves. It is
blessed with good soil, wonderful people and abundant natural
resources. But it is cursed by diamonds and consistently rated the
poorest and most miserable in the world. I cannot imagine how the
amputees will survive in a subsistence economy. I can't even begin to
imagine the horrific moments that brought them there.
But what haunts me most is the fact that we--American consumers--are
paying for these atrocities. Today, rebels will earn $37 million from
this blood trade, and two-thirds of that will come from Americans.
Tomorrow, they'll earn another $37 million. And the next day, and the
one after that.
Now, I know the young men and women shopping for engagement rings,
the couples celebrating wedding anniversaries, and other Americans have
no idea of this blood trade. They don't know they are keeping these
butchers supplied with weapons, with drugs for their child soldiers,
with everything they need to keep fighting. They don't know that
diamonds symbolize misery to many Africans.
I know something else: when American consumers--American taxpayers--
figure this out, there is going to be Hell to pay. Mr. Speaker, you and
I and ever member of this House knows how kind-hearted our fellow
Americans are. They would never knowingly underwrite this kind of
violence: just look at consumers' attitudes toward fur once they
learned how much blood was on that industry's hands.
We also know that most Americans don't begrudge foreign aid--if it's
going to help solve real problems. In the past decade, our country has
sent $2 billion in aid to the four countries plagued by conflict
diamonds. But over the same period, rebels have smuggled $10 billion
worth of conflict diamonds out of these countries, and used them to
create the need for ever more humanitarian assistance. That adds up to
nothing but more suffering for the people caught in the middle of these
wars over diamonds.
Until now, Congress has demonstrated shockingly little leadership on
this issue, and we have failed as a steward of taxpayers' funds. There
have been some shinning exceptions to this: Mr. Wolf, Chairman Ed Royce
of the Africa Subcommittee, and Representative Cynthia McKinney have
done superb work in highlighting these problems. I also appreciate the
support of other Members who have co-sponsored my CARAT Act, which
forced the industry to address this problem. Any I particularly want to
thank Holly Burkhalter, a human-rights advocate with Physicians for
Human Rights whose dedication to peace and justice has been constant
for decades, and who has been creative and tireless in her efforts to
end this blood trade.
In the Senate, Judd Gregg has been a lone voice against U.S.
complicity in the atrocities associated with conflict diamonds. He was
able to include a provision in this bill that marks the first
Congressional action on this matter. It is not an ideal solution, but I
am pleased to support its embargo of diamonds from some of these blood-
soaked countries and hope to continue to work with him to enact a
strong alternative.
I had hoped that a substitute agreed to by American jewelers and a
human-rights coalition of more than 70 respected organizations (led by
Physicians for Human Rights, Amnesty International, and World Vision)
would win final passage. Unfortunately, our joint efforts only won the
Administration's acceptance of that provision late last night, too late
to be included in the bill before us today. It still is not too late
for Congress to approve this provision. My understanding is that this
bill will be vetoed by the President. Should the bill be returned to
Congress, I urge may colleagues to include the provision in the revised
bill.
I submit for the Record an editorial that recently appeared in the
Washington Post that explains the status of this compromise. Our
colleagues all know of this Administration's many initiatives to reach
out to Africa--and its
[[Page H11296]]
many failures. Early in 1999, the United States was a leader in efforts
to end the trade in conflict diamonds. I am grateful that, late last
night, the Administration agreed to accept this compromise, but I am
sorely disappointed that it ran out the clock. My hope now is that the
threatened veto of this bill will let us change this provision before
this becomes law.
If that doesn't happen and the Gregg provision becomes law, there is
still hope for U.S. pressure to end the trade in blood diamonds.
However, reports that the Administration is saying it will not enforce
this provisions are deeply troubling, as is the industry's attempt to
renege on its compromise with the coalition because of assurances it
has received from U.S. officials that they have no intention of
enforcing it.
I will not accept the argument that this cannot be enforced; the
Constitution demands otherwise, and two U.N. resolutions require
specific steps against two of the countries named in this provision. It
would be tragic if this provision were to close U.S. borders to diamond
imports, as the Administration initially suggested it would. If that
happens, I will be ready to help remedy this situation legislatively
when the 107th Congress convenes. But the possibility that this could
happen ought to have encouraged the Administration to agree to the
alternative compromise while there was still time for Congress to act.
The tradegy of this outcome would not be any loss to American
consumers or jewelers--because the standard practice is to keep a
year's supply of diamonds on hand. Nor would it be anything but a
blessing to the people of conflict-diamond countries. No, the real
hardship would fall on stable democracies like South Africa whose
economy depends on the legitimate trade in diamonds.
The diamond industry and--until just hours ago this Administration--
have been far too cavalier about responding to this problem before
consumers begin to boycott diamonds. Diamonds do tremendous good where
governments and the industry work together; an effective boycott would
devastate the economy of Bostwana--once the poorest nation in Africa,
and now one of its success stories--and do similar harm to few other
poor countries.
A consumer action is very likely, and I am looking forward to
participating in a responsible one that stops short of boycotting all
diamonds. On Fifth Avenue in New York recently, outside of a swank
store with some of Sierra Leon's amputees and others who share our
concerns. I urged consumers to go to the jewelry stores in their
neighborhood and ask three simple questions:
Where was this diamond mined?
Am I contributing to the bloodshed in Africa?
What are you doing to stop this blood trade?
Untill these questions start sounding familiar to American jewelers
and until the diamond industry, the U.S. Government, and the United
Nations feel pressure from consumers to do the right thing--whole
nations will continue to be a battleground.
I urge my colleagues to join in efforts to end this blood trade. I
urge you to raise these questions with the jewelers in your district.
And I urge all Americans to stand up to the war criminals in Africa and
the corporations that fuel their war machine, and to demand
accountability and justice.
[From the Washington Post Oct. 19, 2000]
A Chance to Control Killers
This time last year, the State Department convened an
international conference on the role played by diamonds in
Africa's grisly civil wars. In Angola, Congo and Sierra
Leone, the rebel bands that killed and maimed civilians are
driven or sustained by diamond revenues: They fight less for
political reasons than to gain access to the gems that will
make their commanders rich. One year since that conference,
the movement to control ``conflict diamonds'' has progressed
remarkably rapidly. And yet in the final days of Congress,
the administration may miss a chance to press its advantage
fully.
The chance presents itself in an amendment sponsored by
Rep. Troy Hall (D-Ohio), which would give the diamond
industry one year to implement a scheme to track gems from
their country of origin to the handful of centers that cut
and finish them. After they are minded, the diamonds would be
wrapped in tamper-proof, numbered package and logged into a
database; each time a package crossed a border, that would be
logged tool. The idea is that the cutting centers could then
refuse to take diamonds from countries where they are known
to be mined by murderous rebels. Jewelers could buy from
responsible cutting centers with a clear conscience; and the
whole industry would avoid a consumer boycott like the one
that undermined the fur business.
This scheme would not foolproof. Some conflict diamonds
might be smuggled into nearby countries and packaged there.
But the monitoring regime would at least limit that problem,
because it would be accompanied by rules capping each
country's exports at the estimated level of its mining
capacity. Recently Liberia has been exporting many times more
diamonds that it produces, because its government is close to
the limb-chopping rebels who control Sierra Leone's diamond
fields. A certification scheme would stop such overt
financing of, and profiting from, butchery.
Almost nobody opposes monitoring. The diamond industry
itself designed the scheme in conjunction with
nongovernmental critics; most diamond-producing governments
favor it as well. Rep. Hall wants to build on that consensus
by allowing one year to implement the monitoring scheme, then
imposing sanctions on countries that fail to comply. The
World Diamond Council, which speaks for the industry, has
endorsed the idea of a deadline. But the administration is
wary, pleading that congressional deadlines trample on its
prerogatives, and that a hard deadline is unwise. The danger
is that, without a deadline, the momentum of reform may
dissipate. The administration should embrace this change to
control the killing gems.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206,
nays 198, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No 562]
YEAS--206
Abercrombie
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
[[Page H11297]]
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Shadegg
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Ackerman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Bliley
Brady (PA)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Crowley
Danner
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Johnson, Sam
Klink
Lazio
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Metcalf
Packard
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Shuster
Spratt
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1937
Messrs. DELAHUNT, COLLINS, and SHADEGG changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BUYER, COX, and KASICH changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________