[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4141-H4167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 192 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2500.
{time} 1411
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, a request for a recorded vote on Amendment No. 28 by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had been postponed and the
bill was open for amendment from page 47, line 20 through page 48, line
9.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, each amendment shall not
be subject to amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, each may
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any
pending amendment); and amendments numbered 1, 8, 19, 36, 34, 5, 33,
38, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 35, 10, 11, and 40 shall be debatable only for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an
opponent.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for expenses related to planning, testing, and
implementing the long-form transitional database for the 2010
decennial census, $65,000,000.
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
$171,138,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That regarding engineering and design of a facility at the
Suitland Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding the
expenditure of funds and project planning, design and cost
decisions shall be provided by the Bureau, in cooperation
with the General Services Administration, to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act or any other Act under the heading
``Bureau of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs''
shall be used to fund the construction and tenant build-out
costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal Center.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $13,048,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the
Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs
incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations,
and related services and such fees shall be retained and used
as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum
services, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, NTIA shall not authorize spectrum use or provide any
spectrum functions pursuant to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act, 47 U.S.C. 902-903, to any Federal entity
without reimbursement as required by NTIA for such spectrum
management costs, and Federal entities withholding payment of
such cost shall not use spectrum: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as
offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously
transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs
incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and
related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication
Sciences of NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions
under this paragraph, and such funds received from other
Government agencies shall remain available until expended.
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction
For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $43,466,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,358,000 shall be
available for program administration as authorized by section
391 of the Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the
provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year
unobligated balances may be made available for grants for
projects for which applications have been submitted and
approved during any fiscal year.
Information Infrastructure Grants
For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $15,503,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $3,097,000 shall be
available for program administration and other support
activities as authorized by section 391: Provided further,
That, of the funds appropriated herein, not to exceed 5
percent may be available for telecommunications research
activities for projects related directly to the development
of a national information infrastructure: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding the requirements of sections 392(a) and
392(c) of the Act, these funds may be used for the planning
and construction of telecommunications networks for the
provision of educational, cultural, health care, public
information, public safety, or other social services:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no entity that receives telecommunications services
at preferential rates under section 254(h) of the Act (47
U.S.C. 254(h)) or receives assistance under the regional
information sharing systems grant program of the Department
of Justice under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may
use funds under a grant under this heading to cover any costs
of the entity that would otherwise be covered by such
preferential rates or such assistance, as the case may be.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of
suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, $846,701,000, to remain
available until expended, which amount shall be derived from
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation:
Provided, That the sum herein appropriated from the general
fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2002, so as to result in a final
fiscal year 2002 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at $0: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2002, should the total amount of offsetting fee collections
be less than $846,701,000, the total amounts available to the
United States Patent and Trademark Office shall be reduced
accordingly: Provided further, That an
[[Page H4142]]
additional amount not to exceed $282,300,000 from fees
collected in prior fiscal years shall be available for
obligation in fiscal year 2002.
Science and Technology
Technology Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $8,094,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Scientific and Technical Research and Services
For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $348,589,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.
Industrial Technology Services
For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $106,522,000, to remain available until expended.
In addition, for necessary expenses of the Advanced
Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $12,992,000, to remain available until expended.
Construction of Research Facilities
For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation of
existing facilities, not otherwise provided for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized by 15
U.S.C. 278c-278e, $20,893,000, to remain available until
expended.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft;
grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i, $2,197,298,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That fees and
donations received by the National Ocean Service for the
management of the national marine sanctuaries may be retained
and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those
activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further,
That, in addition, $68,000,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products
and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided
further, That grants to States pursuant to sections 306 and
306A of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided further, That, of the
$2,220,298,000 provided for in direct obligations under this
heading (of which $2,197,298,000 is appropriated from the
General Fund, $71,000,000 is provided by transfer, and
$17,000,000 is derived from deobligations from prior years),
$375,609,000 shall be for the National Ocean Service,
$542,121,000 shall be for the National Marine Fisheries
Service, $317,483,000 shall be for Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research, $659,349,000 shall be for the National Weather
Service, $149,624,000 shall be for the National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and $176,112,000
shall be for Program Support: Provided further, That,
hereafter, ocean assessment, coastal ocean, protected
resources, and habitat conservation activities under this
heading shall be considered to be within the ``Coastal
Assistance sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(K) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended: Provided further, That, of the amount provided under
this heading, $304,000,000 shall be for the conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(K) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That no general administrative charge shall
be applied against an assigned activity included in this Act
and, further, that any direct administrative expenses applied
against an assigned activity shall be limited to 5 percent of
the funds provided for that assigned activity so that total
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
administrative expenses shall not exceed $257,200,000:
Provided further, That any use of deobligated balances of
funds provided under this heading in previous years shall be
subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act: Provided further, That, in addition, not to exceed
$3,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the fund
entitled ``Coastal Zone Management''.
In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits
Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel
and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act
(10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.
procurement, acquisition and construction
(including transfers of funds)
For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital
assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
$749,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That unexpended balances of amounts previously made available
in the ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'' account for
activities funded under this heading may be transferred to
and merged with this account, to remain available until
expended for the purposes for which the funds were originally
appropriated: Provided further, That, of the amount provided
under this heading, $26,000,000 shall be for the conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(K) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act
or any other Act under the heading ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Procurement, Acquisition and
Construction'' shall be used to fund the General Services
Administration's standard construction and tenant build-out
costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal Center.
pacific coastal salmon recovery
For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of
Pacific salmon populations and the implementation of the 1999
Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and
Canada, $110,000,000, subject to express authorization:
Provided, That this amount shall be for the conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(K) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
In addition, for implementation of the 1999 Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement, $25,000,000, of which $10,000,000 shall be
deposited in the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers
Restoration and Enhancement Fund, of which $10,000,000 shall
be deposited in the Southern Boundary Restoration and
Enhancement Fund, and of which $5,000,000 shall be for a
direct payment to the State of Washington for obligations
under the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement.
coastal zone management fund
Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed
$3,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' account to offset the costs of
implementing such Act.
fishermen's contingency fund
For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law
95-372, not to exceed $952,000, to be derived from receipts
collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until
expended.
foreign fishing observer fund
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law
96-339), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627), and
the American Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), to
be derived from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery
observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed
$191,000, to remain available until expended.
fisheries finance program account
For the cost of direct loans, $287,000, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading may be used for direct loans for
any new fishing vessel that will increase the harvesting
capacity in any United States fishery.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the departmental management of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $37,843,000.
{time} 1415
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 39 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 59, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 71, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 19, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, our country is coming off of one of the
greatest economic growth periods in our Nation's history. This
phenomenal expansion has been driven by our small businesses, which are
the engine of our economy. The contribution of American entrepreneurs
cannot be underestimated. Small businesses employ half our workers,
create new jobs 75 percent faster than large companies, and make up
half of our GDP.
The SBA fuels this powerful engine through its loan and technical
assistance programs. SBA maintains a loan portfolio of $45 billion to
nearly a half million businesses, accounts for nearly half of all
venture capital financing,
[[Page H4143]]
and helped secure financing for eight of Fortune Magazine's 100
fastest-growing firms in 1999. The SBA has even helped launch household
brand names like Fed-Ex, Intel, and Apple.
Unfortunately, this bill's funding levels leave the agency short by
$130 billion. It zeros out ten programs and underfunds another half-
dozen. This leaves our small businesses close to running on empty.
This amendment, offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly), and myself, will restore $17 million to the agency,
allowing us to adequately fund SBA's 7(a) loan program and maintain for
PRIME and BusinessLinc, two critical small business development
programs.
Mr. Chairman, access to capital means access to opportunity for small
business owners. The 7(a) loan program, which helps small businesses
obtain long-term capital they need for growth and expansion, directly
translates into jobs and a net return on our investment. Last year
alone, 7(a) made 43,000 loan guarantees worth over $10.5 billion. The
7(a) program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business
loans. The current 7(a) funding is almost $40 million below last year,
threatening 20,000 small business loans.
This amendment will restore $10 million to the 7(a) program, bringing
the level up to $88 million, still far below the $117 million we
provided last year for the program. With more and more reports coming
to light every day that capital is becoming increasingly difficult for
small businesses to obtain, having an adequately funded 7(a) program
will be critical to our Nation's small business success.
Oftentimes even before an enterprise gets their first loan, the dice
have already been cast on whether they will succeed. The PRIME
initiative gives entrepreneurs the understanding about potential
business opportunities, pitfalls, and the necessary steps to success.
Studies consistently show that entrepreneurs who receive counseling and
technical assistance are twice as likely to succeed. This program
ensures those mistakes do not happen. Our amendment funds the program
at a modest $5 million to $10 million less than what was funded last
year.
Finally, while many areas of this country have prospered, there are
pockets of communities that have not benefited from the economic boom
of the last 10 years. BusinessLinc helps entrepreneurs in these
communities to penetrate otherwise inaccessible national markets
through a mentoring program linking small firms with large corporate
mentors. Our amendment provides a modest level of $2 million to sustain
BusinessLinc, still well below last year's level of $7 million.
Our amendment is paid for through minor cuts to the administrative
accounts of the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State. I do not
anticipate these cuts will cause any hardship, because the levels are
well above last year's. It will be a very small price to pay for
programs that deliver such strong returns.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment is a commitment to America's small
businesses, which helped to spur and sustain our historic ``long
boom.'' The foundation of American prosperity is built by
entrepreneurs; and in these less certain times, we must provide the
incentives, knowledge, and guarantees to continue their mission of
success.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
of the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize the importance of many of the small
business programs in this bill, particularly the 7(a) business loan.
However, I think everyone should understand that we have already funded
the Small Business Administration very generously in this bill.
We are over the President's request by $186 million. Let me go back
again: this bill is over the President's request by $186 million. For
the 7(a) program, we have provided $77 million in new budget authority.
This amount, along with anticipated carryover funding, will support $10
billion in loans for fiscal year 2002, which is an increase of over $1
billion above the current level. So we are going to be over $1 billion
above the current level.
So even without this amendment, the 7(a) program for fiscal year 2002
will represent a significant increase above the current level.
The other two programs the gentlewoman seeks to fund, PRIME and
BusinessLinc, were not included in the President's budget. These
programs were judged by the administration to be duplications of
existing programs to assist entrepreneurs, including microloan
technical assistance, new markets technical assistance, small business
development centers, women's business centers, business information
centers, all of which are funded for fiscal year 2002. The increases
proposed by this amendment are unnecessary.
We also would oppose the gentlewoman's proposal to further increase
SBA programs at the expense of the State Department. Both sides of the
aisle for the last several years have talked about giving the Secretary
of State the necessary resources. This amendment will cut $15 million
from Secretary Powell's initiatives to make urgently needed
improvements to diplomatic readiness and to the Department's optimally
automated system. So we would be taking this from the Defense
Department at the very time both sides want to meet Secretary Powell's
concerns.
In addition, the amendment includes a cut which, though small, would
have a serious impact on the Department of Commerce, a 5 percent cut to
the Department's management accounts, which is overwhelmingly where we
get the real dollars and salaries, which may very well result in
reductions in force.
So we are over, we are well over, we are beyond with the carryover.
We are well over last year. Potential risks really create a difficult
time for Secretary Powell, so I strongly urge opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewomen from New York, Ms. Velazquez and Mrs. Kelly.
Mr. Chairman, I have said on many occasions and will continue to say
throughout further debate on this bill that my chairman, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), has done a wonderful job on this bill. That
is why I say we will support this bill, and I will be asking both sides
to vote for it in large numbers, if not unanimously.
However, I also said, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
knows that, that if there is a weakness in this bill, it is what was
not done for the SBA, and in fact what was the harm we did to SBA.
So while I myself am not crazy about cuts to the Department of
Commerce or the Department of State, I realize the importance, one, of
trying to pass this amendment here today, and at the minimum, to try to
bring forth the understanding that this is an issue that we are not
finished with; that in conference and as we move this bill on, we have
to try to do something about the Small Business Administration.
So I think that what should be noted here is that we have people on
this side who support this bill, but who feel that something should be
done to remedy that one part of the bill that is very weak. I am a
prime example of that.
So I would hope that the chairman does not see this in any way as an
attack on the bill, but certainly an understanding that there is work
yet that needs to be done.
In addition, I think it would be proper at this point to accept this
amendment and then, as we go to conference, we can make the changes
necessary in that State and Commerce situation.
Now, we have been very good to the Commerce Department in this bill.
We are very good to the State Department. There is no reason why we
cannot be good to SBA, and then find a way to take care of these two
cuts that we would be making, or this shifting of dollars that we would
be making by this amendment.
So I would hope, again, that the chairman would take this amendment
in the spirit that it is intended, and that is to remedy that one part
of the bill that is week and one that I know he wants to strengthen.
Secondly, I would hope that we use it, again, as a unifying situation
to bring us together even further on the bill as we move along.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Velazquez-Kelly
amendment to increase the funding for the
[[Page H4144]]
three crucial programs of the U.S. Small Business Administration, the
7(a) loan program, the PRIME program, and the BusinessLinc program.
Together, these programs help our Nation's smallest businesses prosper
and survive.
Our amendment provides for an additional $10 million for the 7(a)
loan program. This lending program supports over $10 billion in new
business loans annually. It brings money back into the Federal
Treasury. It is a very good program.
Last year, the SBA 7(a) loans accounted for over 30 percent of all
long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. In my district, the 7(a)
program was responsible for 93 loans totalling over $22 million last
year. Without appropriate funding this year, the program will not be as
far-reaching as in past years.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the bill they
have brought before us, and for acting to fund the 7(a) program at $77
million, but I urge that we go one step further and give this
worthwhile program the funds needed to ensure its viability.
In the midst of economic uncertainty, that is not the time to impose
fees on lenders and reduce access to loans for small businesses.
The Kelly-Velazquez amendment also includes $5 million for the
Program for Investment in Microenterprises, known as the PRIME program,
which is designed to increase investment and technical assistance in
traditionally underserved areas. These much-needed funds will help
PRIME provide training, technical assistance, and access to credit to
entrepreneurs.
Long-term studies charting the effects of microenterprise investment
have found that low-income individuals engaged in microenterprise
development increase their personal incomes, build assets, and decrease
their reliance on government benefits.
When we are telling people that it is time that they go from welfare
to work, we are teaching them skills and training them to do jobs, and
what we also must do then is provide them with the ability to go on to
reach the American dream, and that is to begin and to succeed in
businesses, tiny little businesses, with microloan programs, so that
they, too, can experience the ability to be part of the American dream.
Who knows who and where the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates is going to
come from. It may come from one of these programs. It is a very
important program that we do with BusinessLinc, with the PRIME program,
and with the 7(a) loan programs. I have people in my own district who
have moved from welfare into now very successful businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Nation's small
businesses and small business access to financial and technical
assistance and adopt this amendment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, very clear, we are not adding one dime to a $39
million-plus appropriation, not one dime. What we are doing is
adjusting close to $17 million of that $39 billion in three programs
that have already been funded a 100 percent increase.
What are we doing here? The SBA has had bipartisan support helping
small businesses throughout America.
{time} 1430
We forget that small business accounts for 99.7 percent of America's
employers and employs are 52 percent of the private work force. Small
companies account for 47 percent of the Nation's sales.
Indeed, over the last decade, America has experienced a period of
growth unprecedented in our history. But the economic boom is slowing
down, financial losses for many companies are mounting, and job cuts
are affecting every industry in America. The current CJS appropriations
bill has called for a $129.7 million cut to the Small Business
Administration. At a time when we can least afford to do that for the
Nation's small businesses, we are doing that. And we come up with the
excuses that we cannot find the money here, we cannot find the money
there, and we cannot wreck the President's budget. We have already done
that. We have done that in a bipartisan way as well.
Not one dime, Mr. Chairman, is being added to this appropriation,
simply taking from specific programs that have already been budgeted a
100 percent increase. I do not know. That is crazy, it sounds to me.
That does not sound like good budgeting. Not at all.
These cuts affect the very guts of small business. The New Markets
Venture Capital Companies, the BusinessLINC, the HUBZone program, the
Small Business Investment Company Program, and these are the programs
that serve a lot of low-income areas, areas that need our help. I think
we can agree that slashing funding for these key SBA programs pushes
aside the collective futures of women-owned and minority-owned small
businesses while at the same time assuring that other small businesses
lose access to vital capital resources offered by the agency.
I want to salute the ranking member of the Committee on Small
Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and my good
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). This
change that they have offered is on target, is real, and is realistic.
To begin with, the 7(a) loan program has a history of success in
ensuring that capital is available when small businesses need it. Since
1992, the 7(a) program has helped with over $76 billion in loans to
entrepreneurs. Last year alone, the 7(a) program provided for 43,000
loans throughout the United States of America into practically every
district in this country.
The current CJS bill calls for the 7(a) program to be slashed from
$114 million to $77 million for 2002. This would result in
approximately 20,000 fewer loans. Twenty thousand. How can we tell the
American small businessperson that help is not on the way in this
business-friendly administration? This amendment would begin by
restoring $10 million to the 7(a) program, bringing the fiscal year
2002 funding level up to $87 million in the appropriations, still well
below the 2001 appropriation.
Likewise, the Velazquez-Kelly amendment would add $2 million for the
BusinessLINC program. The offsets for these funding increases will come
from three of the biggest agencies in the Federal Government. The
Congressional Budget Office has scored the Velazquez-Kelly amendment
budget-neutral. Now, how many amendments do we see on this floor that
can say that? Budget-neutral.
So let us stand for the American worker for a change and help restore
the fuel that drives the American economy.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in support of the Velazquez-Kelly
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I join with those individuals who recognize that small
businesses are in fact the economic engine that drives the economy of
this country. It is amazing to me that we can understand how important,
how relevant, how impactful small businesses are to the economic
viability and well-being of our Nation and then cut those programs that
are designed to enhance and promote the same.
This amendment is not a difficult amendment. It is not one that is
difficult to understand. It is not even one that costs a great deal of
money. But it is one that would generate in the hearts and minds of
small business people all over the Nation that this Congress, that this
administration does in fact understand what small businesses mean to
America.
So I want to commend both my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). It
seems as though New York has some understanding of small business when
we get two people, one from each side of the aisle, recognizing that
without the resources there is no way that we can keep our small
businesses alive, well, healthy, vibrant, and generating what is needed
to keep our economy growing.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
very fine words, and I want to add my support for the amendment of both
gentlewomen from New York and add just a special aspect.
[[Page H4145]]
As my colleague well knows, we have suffered in Houston an enormous
impact from Tropical Storm Allison. Part of the FEMA recovery is the
Small Business Administration that is on the ground helping businesses,
small businesses that are the backbone of our community, recoupment.
This is an important amendment not only for those that have been
damaged severely by the storm, over $4 billion in damages, but for all
of the small businesses around the country, and particularly those
regional offices that have been so outstanding in helping to restore
those businesses.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an excellent
amendment, and might I conclude by simply saying budget-neutral. I
think that is a key element to the need for passing this amendment and
providing opportunity for our small businesses.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to
thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her remarks, and I associate
myself with them.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking minority member
of the Committee on Small Business, and the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly) for their hard work on this amendment, which I rise in
support of.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the
Velazquez-Kelly Amendment that attempts to restore funding to the 7(a)
Loan Program, BusinessLINC and PRIME programs.
As a member of the Small Business Committee I fear that a reduction
in those programs that assist numerous small businesses especially in
rural and low-income areas--will greatly hinder their success.
Key programs such as PRIME, the 7(a) Loan Program, and Business Link
which are critical to business growth have been inadequately funded or
zeroed out completely in this bill.
In an economy with more questions than answers, we should be
increasing opportunities to access capital and technical assistance--
not eliminating them when they are most needed.
Point out--many of these programs were designed to assist small
businesses in low income areas and in minority communities. My district
is one which needs this assistance.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will restore
funding to these vital programs used by small businessmen and women.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the
amendment. There have been many calls from small businesses throughout
my State that are looking at the reinstatement of some of the funding,
so I am very happy to support both the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) in their
effort to be able to do that.
The current Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (CJS) Bill,
particularly the SBA program funding levels, is perhaps the worst bill
in this nation's history for small businesses.
The current CJS appropriations bill called for several loan and
technical assistance programs to be zeroed out in fiscal year 2002.
The total cut from $860 million down to $728 million in SBA's overall
budget. This would cause over 10 critical programs to be zeroed out,
including New Markets Venture Capital Companies, BusinessLINC, the
HUBZone program and the Small Business Investment Company Program.
Cutting access to capital and technical assistance resources in a
time of serious economic uncertainty creates a dangerous scenario where
small businesses and the jobs they create will suffer in the long-term.
That scenario begins with the nearly $40 million dollar cut in the
7(a) Loan Program and the zeroing out of the ``Program for Investments
and Microentrepreneurs'' or PRIME.
The Velazquez-Kelly Amendment is a bipartisan proposal that looks to
restore a measure of that funding to the 7(a), BusinessLINC and PRIME
programs.
the 7(a) loan program adjustments
The 7(a) Program history of success is founded in over $76 billion in
loans to entrepreneurs since 1992. Last year alone, the 7(a) Program
provided for 43,000 loans totaling $10.5 billion for small businesses.
Unfortunately, the current bill calls for the 7(a) Program to be
slashed from $114 million in fiscal year 2001 to $77 million in fiscal
year 2002. This would result in approximately 20,000 fewer loans being
made.
The amendment would begin by restoring $10 million to the 7(a)
Program bringing the fiscal year 2002 funding level up to $87 million
appropriations--this is still well below fiscal year 2001
appropriations.
The BusinessLINC Program Adjustments
The BusinessLINC Program would promote mentor-protege relationships
between small businesses in low-income and high unemployment areas and
large companies.
While the fiscal year 2001 appropriation called for $7 million, the
current legislation would eliminate the program by zeroing out
appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
The Velazquez Amendment would add $2 million to the CJS
appropriations bill--unfortunately this still represents more than a 60
percent cut in the program.
The PRIME Program Adjustments
PRIME establishes a technical assistance program for disadvantaged
Microloan participants located in low-income communities.
But more importantly, PRIME creates a system where before the loan
process even begins, entrepreneurs are brought to discuss every detail
of the process--and in doing so are able to better determine whether a
loan is or is not necessary.
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation was at $15 million for PRIME--H.R.
2500 as reported out of Committee would zero out the program in fiscal
year 2002.
While the amendment would add $5 million back to the program, it
still means the program will be operating at a 66 percent cut from the
previous year.
The offsets for these funding increases will come from three of the
biggest agencies in the federal government. The Congressional Budget
Office has scored the Velazquez-Kelly Amendment ``budget neutral.''
While these offsets come at a price to other agency budgets, we
believe these requests are not excessive.
The Department of Commerce General Administration budget would be
reduced by a total of $2 million--which keeps it at the current funding
level. There is also off budget funds, such as working capital funds,
that can also help offset this reduction.
The State Department would be reduced by $8 million in their
Diplomatic and Consular programs. This account received $400 million in
increase in their overall budget.
Finally, the State Department's Capital Investment Fund would be cut
by $7 million. This Fund was increased by $113 million over the current
funding level--which represents a 100 percent increase.
The cuts in the program represent a cut at the heart of SBA's ability
to deliver key financial and technical assistance to small businesses.
This is especially important as the economy slows and mainstream
capital sources begin to tighten credit standards--particularly in the
high-risk pool of small business lending.
In addition, it will retain the services these programs provide to
businesses in low-income areas--companies that are frequently well-
removed or simply ignored by conventional lending sources.
While the amendment would add only a small portion, approximately $17
million, back to these programs, it would allow them to remain an
important part of the public policy of the SBA well into the future.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan
Velazquez-Kelly amendment which would restore a portion of the funding
that was cut from the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan and
other crucial programs in the FY 2002 Commerce, Justice, State spending
bill. By providing loan guarantees to eligible small businesses that
would otherwise be unable to secure financing, 7(a) loans fill the gap
left by traditional private lenders and supplies the necessary capital
for America's small businesses to expand and create jobs.
Last year, this crucial program backed more than 43,000 loans worth
over $10.5 billion to small firms nationwide. In the first 6 months of
this year, 24 different financial institutions in Rhode Island approved
over 540 7(a) loans for a total of over $61 million to Rhode Island's
small business community. In fact, 7(a) loans make up nearly one-third
of all long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses.
[[Page H4146]]
Mr. Chairman, this program is important to every small business in
America, and it deserves the continued support of the Congress. At a
time when an economic downturn threatens businesses, jobs, and families
across the country, cuts to SBA programs pose more danger than ever.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the
Velazquez-Kelly amendment, and I strongly and admirably commend the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly) on their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the severe funding cuts in
Small Business Administration programs that were reported in the FY
2002 Commerce-Justice-State spending bill.
While I understand the appropriators' difficult task for maintaining
fiscal responsibility while adequately funding the wide variety of
programs contained in this bill, I am extremely disappointed in the
subcommittee's decision to slash SBA funding by $132 million, a 15
percent decrease from FY 2001.
In particular, I am very concerned about the $30 million in cuts to
the 7(a) guaranteed loan program. By providing loan guarantees to
eligible small businesses that would otherwise be unable to secure
private financing, this crucial loan program fills the gap left by
traditional private lenders and supplies the necessary capital for
America's small businesses to expand and create jobs. The committee's
funding level amounts to a 32 percent cut and would eliminate an
estimated 14,000 critical loan guarantees.
Just last year, the 7(a) program backed more than 43,000 loans worth
over $10.5 billion to small firms nationwide. Since 1992, the program
has provided almost $76 billion in capital to America's small
entrepreneurs. In fact, 7(a) loans make up nearly 30 percent of all
long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. This program is
important to every small business in America, and it deserves the
continued support of Congress.
Another element of the 15 percent cut to SBA would end the New Market
Venture Capital initiative, and the PRIME and BusinessLinc programs.
The New Market Venture Capital Program, which was designed to spur
investment in low-and moderate-income communities and passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support last year, has been zeroed out in this
year's bill. The funding for the PRIME program, which allows the SBA to
award grants to non-profit micro-enterprise development organizations,
has also been eliminated. Finally, BusinessLinc, which grants funding
to local non-profit economic development organizations to assist them
in bringing local businesses to the attention of large corporations,
has been underfunded to the point that the program will effectively no
longer exist. Discontinuing these vital programs will undoubtedly
negatively affect economic development initiatives targeted to assist
low-income and minority business communities. At a time when an
economic downturn is threatening businesses, jobs and families across
the country, these kinds of cuts pose more danger than ever.
Small businesses are the backbone of Rhode Island's economy and
account for more than 95 percent of the jobs in the state. They bring
new and innovative services and products to the marketplace and provide
business ownership opportunities to diverse and traditionally
underrepresented groups. Many of these small businesses rely on the
valuable loan assistance, technical training and grant programs offered
by the SBA. These harsh budget cuts would severely impact Rhode
Island's small business community, just when we need their
contributions the most.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, these unwarranted cuts to SBA's budget will
seriously undermine the agency's ability to deliver services to small
businesses. The small business community supplies over half of the
nation's workforce, and in the last decade has shown the greatest
growth in our economy. In order to continue this successful
entrepreneurial trend, small businesses need the access to capital that
SBA provides. I would strongly urge the appropriators to reconsider
their decision to cut SBA's funding. The small business community
deserves our full-fledged support and nothing less.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to be heard and go on the
record in support of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), with regard
to this amendment.
Particularly of importance to my community is the BusinessLINC
program that would allow businesses and the community to work together
in improving small business.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed legislation to establish the New
Markets Initiative last December, it did so in a spirit of
bipartisanship, to ensure that all of our nation's communities have the
opportunity to realize the American dream.
BusinessLinc is an innovative partnership between the Small Business
Administration, the Treasury Department, and the business community.
The program encourages large businesses to work with small business
owners and entrepreneurs to provide technical assistance and mentoring.
This program will improve the economic competitiveness of smaller firms
located in distressed areas, both urban and rural.
In speaking with many small businesses in my community, the Eleventh
District of Ohio, it is clear that business success is predicated on a
number of factors, such as the quality of the product or service, its
price, marketing, the financial stability of the business, and the
owner's experience. But one factor which has been largely overlooked in
legislation is a business person's contacts within the community. Some
call this the effect of the ``old boy's club.''
My constituents have conveyed their frustration at being left out of
informal networks that form the basis for later business dealings.
These informal networks have a decided effect on an owner's ability to
plan and a small business' ability to grow. Simply stated--information
and skills are key to success.
BusinessLinc will provide much-needed access to mentoring and support
for disadvantaged businesses. In developing the BusinessLinc program,
local coalitions have taken creative approaches to assist small
businesses to employ strategies that best respond to the needs of the
community.
My colleague, Nydia Velazquez, the Ranking Member of the Small
Business Committee will offer an amendment to restore funding to this
program. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and demonstrate
their support for business growth by funding BusinessLinc.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez-Kelly
amendment to add $10 million to the Business Loans program account. In
particular, I support $5 million for the ``Program for Investments in
Microentrepreneurs'' or PRIME.
PRIME, a bill that I sponsored in 1999, was authorized with broad
bipartisan support as part of the Financial Services Modernization Act.
Under PRIME, the Small Business Administration is authorized to award
grants to non-profit microenterprise development organizations. These
loans are vital to the initial success of start-up small businesses.
Many of the minority or disadvantaged entrepreneurs in low income
communities who depend on these funds have no other access to capital.
However, PRIME no only provides desperately needed capital, it also
provides the technical assistance necessary to ensure the ongoing
viability of a new business. Thus, new small business developers will
be able to access the expertise they need to operate their fledgling
businesses.
With the slowing economy and ever greater numbers of unemployed, it
is critical that we continue to provide opportunities for self-
sufficiency through self-employment. There are approximately 400
microenterprise providers in the US moving about $2 billion dollars in
capital. The $10 million requested for the Business Loans program and
PRIME in particular, will help expand these efforts and strengthen the
overall economy.
Congress appropriated $15 million in the Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations for PRIME Act implementation. The offsets
necessary to pay for this amendment will have no impact on the ability
of the agencies concerned to operate or fulfill their responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of
this amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Velazquez-Kelly amendment. First I would like to commend Ranking Member
Velazquez and Congresswoman Kelly for their leadership in bringing this
amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, the current Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
(CJS) Bill, particularly the SBA program funding levels, is perhaps the
worst bill in this nation's history for small businesses. The CJS
appropriations bill calls for several loan and technical assistance
programs to be zeroed out in FY 2002. The total cuts from $860 million
down to $728 million in SBA's overall budget would eliminate over 10
critical programs, including the New Markets Venture Capital Companies,
BusinessLINC, the HUBZone Program and the Small Business Investment
Company Program. This bill, as it is currently written, essentially
wipes out the small business programs that we fought for last Congress.
The Velazquez-Kelly amendment is a bipartisan proposal that looks to
restore a measure
[[Page H4147]]
of funding to the 7(a), BusinessLINC and PRIME Programs. The 7(a)
Program history of success is founded in over $76 billion in loans to
entrepreneurs since 1992. Last year alone, the 7(a) Program provided
for 43,000 loans totaling $10.5 billion for small businesses.
Unfortunately, the current bill calls the 7(a) Program to be slashed
from $114 million in FY 2001 to $77 million in FY 2002. This would
result in approximately 20,000 fewer loans being made. The BusinessLINC
Program would promote mentor-protege relationships between small
businesses in low-income and high unemployment areas and large
companies. The CJS bill would eliminate the program by zeroing out
appropriation for FY 2002. This amendment would add $2 million to the
CJS appropriations bill. PRIME establishes a technical assistance
program for disadvantaged Microloan participants. While the amendment
would add $5 million back to the program, the program will be operating
at a 66% cut from the previous year. However, some funding is better
than no funding.
Mr. Chairman, the offsets for these funding increases will come from
three of the biggest agencies in the federal government. While these
offsets come at the expense of other agency budgets, we believe these
requests are not excessive. We are just attempting to obtain a fair
distribution of funding. It is unfair that some agencies receive 100%
increases, while programs that deliver key financial and technical
assistance to small businesses--the engine for growth in our economy--
are zeroed out. We cannot afford to cut funding for small business
development and assistance as the economy slows and mainstream capital
sources begin to tighten credit standards. We must continue to retain
the services that the 7(a), BusinessLINC, and PRIME provide to
businesses in low-income areas--companies that are too often frequently
well removed or simply ignored by conventional lending sources.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. DeLay
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent to reach ahead in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. DeLay:
Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to negotiate or pay any request or claim by the
Government of the People's Republic of China for
reimbursement of the costs associated with the detention of
the crewmembers of the United States Navy EP-3 aircraft that
was forced to land on Hainan Island, China, on April 1, 2001,
or for reimbursement of any of the costs associated with the
return of the aircraft to the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to offer an amendment that will stop any payment from being
sent from the United States Government to the Communist Chinese
Government that is related to the downing of our Navy EP-3 aircraft and
the detention of our crew members.
I take this amendment, quite frankly, from a bill authored by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a more extensive bill than this
amendment; but I appreciate the fight that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) is putting up, and I appreciate him in this
regard.
I must say that in offering this amendment it must never be American
policy to pay tribute to aggressive regimes. Such a payment would not
only violate a hard-won tradition of confronting international
aggression, it would force America to abdicate a role as the leading
defender of free movement through the world's international skies and
waters. And it is not a duty we are willing to duck.
The brazen audacity of some demands can almost take on a kind of a
comic grandeur. At first glimpse, the preposterous suggestion that the
United States is somehow indebted to the Communist Chinese Government
for the costs associated with downing our plane and detaining our air
crew appears to fall into that camp. And for that reason, we are
tempted to dismiss the Communist Chinese Government's demand for
compensation as the deluded daydreams of a despotic regime.
But as illogical and unbelievable as it may sound, today Communist
leaders in Beijing are soberly demanding that the people of the United
States pay them $1 million in compensation. The idea that American
taxpayers should start rewarding Communist piracy is as contemptible as
it is unlikely to happen. This Congress will never allow a single
dollar to be used to compensate the perpetrators of an international
aggression.
This is simply the latest example of the reckless, ruthless, and
irrational mindset of China's Communist government. President Bush is
standing firm for freedom. We need to support the administration by
staking out a very clear position because, if history has taught us
anything, it teaches that appeasement is nothing more than a
downpayment on further trials and added hardships. To export our
American values, we must always be prepared to defend our interests.
{time} 1445
We must remain engaged with China. We owe it to the billion Chinese
people who are victimized by an oppressive and abusive Communist
government. We know that once the Chinese people begin to sense the
opportunities and blessings of self-government they will soon shake off
the shackles of communism. We look forward to that day.
But until the Chinese people are liberated to determine their own
destiny, we must stand firm in defense of our commitment to freedom.
This amendment does just that. It will send a clear signal to the
Communist rulers in China: If you thought intimidation would persuade
the United States to abdicate the defense of freedom, it failed.
We support open ties with all peoples, especially Chinese families
struggling beneath communism. We seek the free exchange of goods,
services and democratic ideals with men and women around the world. We
wish to cultivate stronger ties between the Chinese people and the
United States. But Jiang Zemin and his circle of apparatchiks will
never deter America from flying patrols to the frontier of freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I
ask unanimous consent that I may control the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the distinguished Republican Whip, for bringing this matter to
my attention, thereby expediting the process that several of us began
some time ago.
I introduced the free-standing bill, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, and the distinguished chairman
and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services which seeks to
achieve what the DeLay amendment seeks to achieve.
On April 1, 2001, a Chinese F-8 fighter flew dangerously close to a
United States Navy EP-3 aircraft which was on a routine reconnaissance
mission in international air space off the coast of China; and it
collided with it, resulting in structural damage to our aircraft.
The crew of our aircraft transmitted a series of Mayday distress
calls, and they were able to successfully land at the nearest air field
due to the heroic actions of our pilot and of our crew to keep the
plane in the air until it could land safely.
The 24 crew members of the EP-3 aircraft were detained against their
will, and I underscore this, Mr. Chairman. The 24 crew members of our
aircraft were detained against their will for 11
[[Page H4148]]
days before being released, in clear violation of international rules
governing the treatment of such personnel and despite repeated requests
for their release by the United States government at the highest
levels.
The Chinese military authorities boarded the aircraft, removed
equipment from our aircraft, notwithstanding its status under
international law as the property of the United States of America. The
Chinese government, Mr. Chairman, refused to allow the United States to
repair the downed aircraft in Hainan. It refused to allow it to be
flown back to the United States. It instead demanded that the United
States cut the plane into pieces and return it to the United States on
a leased transport aircraft.
Now the Chinese government has presented us with a $1 million invoice
which allegedly covers the expenses of the 24 crew members while held
in captivity and related expenses.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the ultimate arrogance on the part of this
Communist regime. The accident was caused by reckless action by a
Chinese pilot with a long and documented history of taking overly
aggressive actions in intercepting United States reconnaissance
aircraft operating in international air space.
The Chinese government failed to comply with its international
obligations immediately to return our crew members.
The United States government, Mr. Chairman, has already incurred
significant costs associated with the recovery of our aircraft,
including the dispatching of our personnel and other employees of our
government to the Chinese island of Hainan to cut the aircraft into
pieces and pack it aboard a cargo plane and leasing the cargo plane
itself.
We are currently evaluating, Mr. Chairman, whether this aircraft can
be repaired to make it airworthy again or whether a new EP-3 aircraft
must be purchased to replace it. The cost of that would be $80 million.
Mr. Chairman, our resolution and the amendment of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) makes it clear that it is the sense of the Congress
of the United States that we have to make a full accounting of all of
the costs associated with this outrage, clearly precipitated by the
action of the Chinese pilot, and that no payment, not one dime, may be
paid to the Chinese government until the Chinese government reimburses
us for the whole cost of this disgraceful episode. That may run well
over $80 million.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and
want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for offering the
amendment.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) can almost argue that we
should be sending the Chinese government a bill if we look at the
precedent that was set with regards to Serbia and the destruction of
their embassy. But I think it is a great amendment, and I hope that it
is passed by unanimous vote and that this sends a message to the
Chinese government.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I am
very strong on dealing with China and trading with China, but I think
this particular incident was very unfortunate. It is pretty much an
arrogant statement to try to charge us and to create more out of what
clearly was a mistake on their part. I support the gentleman's
amendment, and I hope there is bipartisan support for the amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano), and I want to make it clear that this amendment does not
go against the people of China. We all support the people of China.
This is a statement against the Communist government of China and some
of their outrageous actions.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11, as amended by Public
Law 100-504), $21,176,000.
General Provisions--Department of Commerce
Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that
such payments are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for
salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and
1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms
or allowances therefore, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902).
Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and
activities that are under the control of the United States
Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
Sec. 204. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 205. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this title resulting from personnel actions
taken in response to funding reductions included in this
title or from actions taken for the care and protection of
loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within
the total budgetary resources available to such department or
agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry
out this section is provided in addition to authorities
included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of
funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 206. The Secretary of Commerce may award contracts for
hydrographic, geodetic, and photogrammetric surveying and
mapping services in accordance with title IX of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
541 et seq.).
Sec. 207. The Secretary of Commerce may use the Commerce
franchise fund for expenses and equipment necessary for the
maintenance and operation of such administrative services as
the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously
as central services, pursuant to section 403 of Public Law
103-356: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other
assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such
fund, either on hand or on order, less the related
liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations
made for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to
capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall
be paid in advance from funds available to the Department and
other Federal agencies for which such centralized services
are performed, at rates which will return in full all
expenses of operation, including accrued leave, depreciation
of fund plant and equipment, amortization of automated data
processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or
donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable
operating reserve, as determined by the Secretary: Provided
further, That such fund shall provide services on a
competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to
exceed 4 percent of the total annual income to such fund may
be retained in the fund for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal
year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to be
used for the acquisition of capital equipment, and for the
improvement and implementation of department financial
management, ADP, and other support systems: Provided further,
That such amounts retained in the fund for fiscal year 2002
and each fiscal year thereafter shall be available for
obligation and expenditure only in accordance with section
605 of
[[Page H4149]]
this Act: Provided further, That no later than 30 days after
the end of each fiscal year, amounts in excess of this
reserve limitation shall be deposited as miscellaneous
receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That such
franchise fund pilot program shall terminate pursuant to
section 403(f) of Public Law 103-356.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Herger
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Herger:
Page 63, after line 9, insert the following:
TITLE IIA--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Klamath Project Water Rights Compensation
For just compensation for private property taken for public
use, as required by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, for payment by the Attorney General to the
water users of the Klamath Project for the Federal taking of
water rights pursuant to the Klamath Reclamation Project 2001
Annual Operations Plan, which provides for the delivery of no
water to most of the lands served by the Klamath Reclamation
Project, and instead implements an alternative plan developed
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973; and the
amount otherwise provided in this Act for ``National Oceanic
And Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and
Facilities'' (and the amounts specified under such heading
for direct obligations, appropriation from the General Fund,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service) are hereby reduced
by; $200,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Point of Order
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program;
therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the members of the Committee on Appropriations
have put into this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this important amendment today on an issue that
is receiving national attention. Approximately 1,500 family farmers and
scores of agriculture-dependent businesses and families along the
northern California and southern Oregon border have had their
livelihood stripped from them by the Federal Government. A community of
70,000 could go bankrupt.
On April 6 of this year, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that
there will be no water, zero water for farming this year because, in
the opinion of a select group of biologists and based on what many feel
is flawed science, every drop of water was needed for the preservation
of two species of fish. Based only on a best guess about these species
and what is needed to sustain them, the National Marine Fishery Service
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have deprived these communities
of the use of their water rights and their land.
Mr. Chairman, this is the poster child for the injustices that are
occurring under the current implementation of the Endangered Species
Act. Under this well-intentioned law, communities throughout the West
are going broke, and in some cases human lives are being placed in
jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman, this need not happen. As a country that put a man on
the moon three decades ago, I am convinced we can both protect fish and
provide economic stability for our rural communities. Regrettably,
under the current implementation of the ESA, it is an either/or
proposition.
My amendment explicitly recognizes that the Endangered Species Act
also continues to come into direct conflict with fundamental U.S.
constitutional rights and protections. It seeks simply to ensure that
the government satisfies its mandate under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution to provide just compensation for the taking of private
property for a public use.
We have a responsibility to uphold constitutional protections when
they are compromised by the implementation of Federal laws. It is also
a first step toward rectifying the financial harm that the government
has caused in this area.
As the agency partly responsible for this decision, NMFS, which is
funded at more than $540 million in this bill, will be forced under my
amendment to cover the cost of compensation. That is simple
accountability. No amount of money can fully rectify the harm that has
been done to these communities. A way of life is at risk. Ultimately,
the Endangered Species Act must be updated and balance must be restored
if we are to preserve this way of life and prevent future injustices
here and in other parts of the country.
{time} 1500
But as we speak, a select few individuals are bearing severe economic
and social burdens. Fundamental principles of fairness and justice
demand that they be compensated. These are public burdens which should
rightfully be borne by the public as a whole.
Moreover, Federal agencies that are responsible for harming Americans
through their regulatory actions will be held accountable. Perhaps if
we force them to share some of the pain, they will stop to consider the
real consequences of reckless actions.
That is also why I have introduced H.R. 2389. It recognizes that what
has happened in the Klamath Basin is a government-caused disaster. As
such, it requires the Federal Government to pay for the economic losses
that have been sustained. I ask for the support and consideration of my
colleagues on this bill. I also ask my colleagues to realize what is
currently happening under the Endangered Species Act and join me in
demanding that it be modernized because, Mr. Chairman, Americans are
being needlessly hurt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point
of order.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this
amendment. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it would take
$200 million out of the National Marine Fisheries Service's budget. I
think that would be devastating to their budget. The whole problem we
have got in the Northwest is difficult, but we have got to work with
the National Marine Fisheries Service because Congress gave them the
responsibility of administering the Endangered Species Act. They are
doing their best. In fact, I think we should be giving them additional
support so that they can get the job done and deal with these
regulatory problems.
Also in these situations like this, the way to approach the problem
is to do a habitat conservation plan, work with the regulators, and
come up with a plan under which you can go forward. I know this is a
tough problem, and if you want to deal with it, you have got to change
the Endangered Species Act, which I do not favor, but to come here and
to take $200 million out of the National Marine Fisheries Service would
be a disaster.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time; and I agree with what he is saying in terms of the danger
were this approach to be taken to penalize other areas throughout the
Pacific Northwest that are dealing with problems with salmon recovery.
But I fundamentally disagree with my friend from California's primary
premise.
If there were no Endangered Species Act, the people in the Klamath
Basin
[[Page H4150]]
would be in desperate straits. It is because the Federal Government has
overcommitted over the course of the last century the water in the
Klamath Basin. What we should be doing, rather than penalize people who
are trying to deal with species recovery, is to go back and help the
people in need.
We should not have a series of temporary payments that they have to
go through legal hoops to obtain. It is very unlikely that it would
occur. It is far better that we step up and provide money for a
permanent solution which is to reduce the conflicting water demands in
the Klamath Basin. We can do that by making generous payments to
willing sellers who will sell their land. We can buy back at fair value
conservation easements and water rights. If we do this, we will make
these people whole, we will not penalize Native Americans and other
people up and down the West Coast, and we will not be back here time
after time after time.
The gentleman from California is right, the Federal Government has
made a mess, but it is not the Endangered Species Act, it is the fact
that there are more demands on water in the Klamath Basin, for
waterfowl, for agriculture, for endangered species. We need a
comprehensive solution. I strongly urge rejecting this amendment and
approaching it in a way that we can put in place a permanent solution
which is to give them compensation and reduce the demands on water that
the Federal Government has messed up.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. However, I agree with my colleague from California that
there is a serious problem in the Klamath Basin. This year a severe
drought has further exacerbated the pressure on the fishing industry,
tribal interests, the economic well-being of the farmers, and the
waterfowl that use this very critical part of the Pacific Flyway.
However, the underlying issue is an overcommitment of water in the
Klamath Basin. The farmers in this region do need our assistance, and
the Senate has already taken steps to provide immediate assistance to
those farmers hurt by the drought this year. But we need to recognize
that there is simply not enough water to meet all the current demand in
the Klamath Basin. The answer to this problem is to work together
across both State and party lines to using the best available science
to come up with a solution that includes reducing water demands and at
the same time helps farmers and tribes and conserves the region's fish
and waterfowl habitat.
These solutions would include enhancing the CRP, the WRP, and the
WHIP programs in a way that promotes farming on a majority of the
200,000 acres in that region that are currently being farmed. There is
growing support for this type of solution. In fact, there are nearly
100 farmers in the area that have already come forward and are willing
to put up some 30,000 acres of their privately owned land to be able to
achieve the success that we need to reach in that area.
Mr. Chairman, let us turn to real, positive solutions in the Klamath
and not decimate the National Marine Fisheries Service budget or the
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order, and
I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to start my brief
comments with a quote by Patrick Henry:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to
restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to
restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives
and interests.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am speaking in behalf of the gentleman
from California's amendment is that I visited his district in June and
I had a chance to meet these people. I can honestly tell Members that
there is something wrong with the Federal Government when the Federal
Government is trying to put people out of business who are trying to
make a living and paying their taxes.
Down in my district of North Carolina, we have an issue with the
piping plover. The piping plover is a bird that the Federal Government
is going to make a decision that will have a tremendous economic impact
in a negative way on many States in the southeastern part of the United
States.
I wanted to say and the reason I want to be a small part of this
debate is it is a shame when a suckerfish has more influence on the
Federal Government than the people who have been promised land and
promised water years and years ago.
I want to say to my friends on the other side who are in opposition
to the gentleman from California's amendment, I certainly understand
their position and respect that. Again, this is your part of the United
States of America, but when it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the
ESA is having a very negative impact across this Nation. What we need
to do is to reform the Endangered Species Act and find a balance so
that nature and people can move forward.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a few remarks about the situation
along the Klamath River. It is interesting sitting here considering
what we are talking about.
In the 1960s, the Bureau of Reclamation made an effort to actually
poison the suckerfish in the Klamath. They thought it was a pest, and
they attempted to remove it. Now 40 years later, we are here arguing
about what to do to protect the suckerfish. The sad part of it, the
sucker policy, if you will, here, is that there is a study by Oregon
State University that shows the preferred action that Fish and Wildlife
Service or NMFS is putting forward, that is, raising the lake level,
will actually hurt the coho salmon which is also a listed species.
The fact is this really is a sucker policy. Thankfully, one of our
friends to the north, Senator Smith of Oregon, is no sucker. He has
thoughtfully proposed that we follow the facts outlined in a plan from
1993, much of which is still awaiting implementation. This
comprehensive plan balances the needs of wildlife while providing
sufficient water to our farms and communities.
The plan basically says, if the government truly wants to save these
suckerfish, why do they not improve the habitat in the current lake?
Why have they not created suckerfish hatcheries or worked to restrict
the growth of suckerfish predators as set forth in the plan? It is a
real dilemma to me that this sucker punch policy on suckerfish is being
jammed down our throat.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this body will follow the leadership of
Senator Smith and the other Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and my
colleagues in the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger),
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) when we consider how many people in California and
Oregon will be punished because the Federal Government ignored its own
1993 recommendations and is now acting on bad science to change the
balanced policy that has existed but not been implemented for the past
8 years.
If we do not correct this egregious policy error, then our
constituents will know us for the suckers we are.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. HERGER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, this is a critically important amendment on
an issue that has national implications. The bankrupting of family
farmers and rural communities in the Klamath Basin of northern
California and southern Oregon under a Federal regulatory decision is
being discussed across the
[[Page H4151]]
country. It is being written about nationally in publications such as
The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Washington Times. It
has been covered on the national Fox News Network. That is because it
sets a tragic precedent which must be addressed before more communities
are lost.
Again, I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman from Virginia
and the members of the committee have put into this bill. This
amendment is not in any way to take away from that good work. But an
entire community of 70,000 people could go bankrupt. A way of life is
at stake. And the Federal regulatory agency, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, that is in part responsible for that decision is
funded in this bill to the tune of approximately $540 million. Through
the issuance of severely flawed biological opinions, NMFS, along with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have taken the water rights of
these communities for a public use. The fifth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution not just authorizes but requires just compensation. And
the Justice Department, as the final arbiter of such claims against the
Federal Government, would be amply suited, I believe, to determine and
make payment on the underlying takings that have occurred.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe that my colleague
was recognized to speak on the point of order, not the merits of the
amendment.
{time} 1515
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Chair has given a bit of
leeway, but the gentleman from California needs to speak on the point
of order, and not on the underlying issue.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) have 2 additional minutes to
finish his thoughts, even if he is not speaking on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Oregon that
that request cannot be entertained while a point of order is pending.
The Chair would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) to
confine his remarks to the point of order. Otherwise, the Chair is
prepared to rule.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, again, I understand that the gentleman has
concerns that this bill is not a perfect fit, but I wish to underscore
that this was caused at least in part by the National Marine Fisheries
Service. It is a government-caused disaster.
Mr. Chairman, fairness and justice demand that the Federal Government
be accountable for the harm that it has caused. Perhaps this amendment
is precedent-setting, but the bankrupting of entire farming communities
at the stroke of a biologist's pen, to say the least, is a much more
tragic precedent for the rural communities of this Nation.
I urge that the Chair rule that this amendment is in order and allow
for its debate and full consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California proposes to appropriate funds
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes to
provide an appropriation for certain water users of the Klamath Project
``as required by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.'' The constitutional provisions cited provides, ``nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''
The Chair finds that this provision does not support the specific
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 proposed in the gentleman's
amendment.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 70, line 7, be considered as read, printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 63, line 10, through page 70, line 7,
is as follows:
TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme
Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and
grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance,
and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to
exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate
Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice
may approve; $42,066,000.
care of the building and grounds
For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the
Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon
the Architect by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-
13b), $70,000,000, which shall remain available until
expended.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
salaries and expenses
For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers
and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as
authorized by law, $19,287,000.
United States Court of International Trade
Salaries and expenses
For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries
of the officers and employees of the court, services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the
court, as authorized by law, $13,073,000.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
salaries and expenses
For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise
specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the
courts, as authorized by law, $3,631,940,000 (including the
purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed
$27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space
alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related
to new space alteration and construction projects.
In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of
Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed
$2,692,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
defender services
For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community
Defender organizations; the compensation and reimbursement of
expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under
the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended; the
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons
furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the
Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)); the
compensation (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act
maximums) and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys
appointed to assist the court in criminal cases where the
defendant has waived representation by counsel; the
compensation and reimbursement of travel expenses of
guardians ad litem acting on behalf of financially eligible
minor or incompetent offenders in connection with transfers
from the United States to foreign countries with which the
United States has a treaty for the execution of penal
sentences; the compensation of attorneys appointed to
represent jurors in civil actions for the protection of their
employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1875(d); and for
necessary training and general administrative expenses,
$500,671,000, to remain available until expended as
authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i).
fees of jurors and commissioners
For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of
commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to
rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28
U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)), $48,131,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of
land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
court security
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
incident to providing protective guard services for United
States courthouses and the procurement, installation, and
maintenance of security equipment for United States
courthouses and other facilities housing federal court
operations, including building ingress-egress control,
inspection of mail and packages, directed security patrols,
and other similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of
the Judicial Improvement and
[[Page H4152]]
Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $224,433,000, of
which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for security systems or contract costs for court
security officers, to be expended directly or transferred to
the United States Marshals Service, which shall be
responsible for administering the Judicial Facility Security
Program consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts and the Attorney General.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor
vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and
rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $60,029,000,
of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Federal Judicial Center
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as
authorized by Public Law 90-219, $20,235,000; of which
$1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2003,
to provide education and training to Federal court personnel;
and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Judicial Retirement Funds
payment to judiciary trust funds
For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $26,700,000; to the Judicial
Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c),
$8,400,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims
Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l),
$1,900,000.
United States Sentencing Commission
salaries and expenses
For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code,
$11,575,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for
official reception and representation expenses.
General Provisions--the Judiciary
Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this
title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but
no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and
``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', shall be
increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers:
Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts,
courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses
of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided,
That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall
be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of
the Judicial Conference.
Sec. 304. Of the unexpended balances transferred to the
Commission on Structural Alternatives in Federal Appellate
Courts, up to $400,000 may be expended on court operations
under the ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and other
Judicial Services, Salaries and Expenses''.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Roemer
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Roemer:
Page 70, after line 7, insert the following:
Sec. 305. (a) The Federal building located at 10th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, DC, and known as
the Department of Justice Building, shall be designated and
known as the ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice
Building''.
(b) Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice
Building''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment and claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am going to concede the point of order.
I realize and recognize that this would be authorizing on an
appropriations bill. While I concede the point of order, I am even more
determined on the merits of the amendment to continue to pursue the
naming of the Justice Department building after Robert F. Kennedy.
Mr. Chairman, we have 100 cosponsors of this legislation, Democrats
and Republicans. We have very, very helpful and influential Members on
the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf); and I thank the gentleman for his cosponsorship of this bill. We
have the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Scarborough). We have the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) and many other Republicans.
I also have engaged in conversation and negotiation with the
administration and the White House, and we are hopeful that the White
House will also be supportive and enthusiastic of this effort to get
this Justice Department building named after an Attorney General who
served with honor and integrity and dignity in that office from 1961 to
1964.
Mr. Chairman, one of my favorite quotes of Robert Kennedy was as
follows: ``We will never be able to completely eliminate children being
tortured in the world, but we can reduce the number of those children
being tortured.''
In fact, what he is saying is that we can work, and we have an
obligation to work, especially for the most vulnerable people in
society, our children, to in noble and civil ways have government
effectively help them. And, as Attorney General, he worked in a
plethora of ways to achieve these noble and virtuous objectives.
Convictions against organized crime figures rose 800 percent while he
was Attorney General. He enforced Federal Court orders to integrate
schools and universities across our country, particularly in 1962, when
he fought and sent troops down to the University of Mississippi to help
James Meredith enter that school.
He and Lyndon Johnson, the President at that time, fought for the
1964 Civil Rights Act, and there are some scholars that say that that
Civil Rights Act, that is one of the glories of this country, may not
have come along for another 10 years without those two individuals
working hard to pass it.
He was particularly helpful and informative and insightful on the
foreign policy realm for President Kennedy, helping negotiate the
strategy on the Cuban missile crisis. He also traveled the world on
human rights.
So here we have an Attorney General on fighting organized crime, on
fighting for civil rights, on promoting human rights across the world,
on fighting to make sure that racketeering and RICO charges were
brought forward, enforcing the laws of this country. We have a very
talented and skillful and honorable Attorney General. It is time, it is
time, Mr. Chairman, that we name this building after Robert F. Kennedy.
Now, yesterday in this House of Representatives we passed legislation
to name the Peace Corps building after Paul Coverdell, and this body
authorized $10 million to pursue some objectives along those lines. We
have named trade buildings, airports, CIA centers and aircraft
carriers. It is time in fairness, it is time in justice, it is time in
a bipartisan way, to name this building after Robert F. Kennedy.
I would hope that we could do this soon, although maybe not on this
piece of legislation today, but soon. So let us do justice and reward
nobility and hard work, and let us name this Justice Department
building downtown after Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order; but let me
just say that I am a cosponsor of the gentleman's amendment, and I
think it makes a lot of sense. I am reminded of the quote by Bobby
Kennedy that says: ``Some men see things as they are and ask why; I
dream things that never were and ask why not.''
I am also reminded one of the famous quotes that he gave to a group
of students in South Africa in 1966, which I use many times when I
speak to high school kids. He said: ``A third danger,''
[[Page H4153]]
and this is a great recommendation to this body and to anyone, ``a
third danger is timidity. Few men or women are willing to brave the
disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the
wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery
in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital
quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully
to change. Aristotle tells us that `at the Olympic games it is not the
finest and the strongest men who are crowned, but they who enter the
lists.' So too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who
act rightly who win the prize.''
He goes on to say, ``I believe that in this generation,'' and hopeful
in the generation that we are in, particularly when we think of China
and Sudan and the persecution of believers around the world, ``that in
this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will
find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.''
So I think the gentleman's amendment is a great idea. The gentleman
understands why we are objecting. But as he knows, I am a cosponsor and
have been very appreciative of the work the gentleman has done, and
that also his family has done in the area of human rights in China and
around the world.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of
the amendment. I look forward to working with the distinguished
gentleman, who has also worked so hard around the world for human
rights, for justice, for honorable public service. I would hope that
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would continue to work, as he
already has, with me and with others. As I mentioned, we have 100
cosponsors on this legislation to send forth, as the gentleman
mentioned Bobby Kennedy's quote from South Africa, this type of ripple
of hope that helps sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and
resistance.
There should be no resistance to this idea, and I do not think there
is much; and I would hope, working with the administration and the
White House and the gentleman from Virginia and the 100 cosponsors of
this bill, that we can soon see this happen. I look forward to working
with the gentleman, and I appreciate his strong support for this
legislation.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the
gentleman for his sponsorship and efforts with regard to a memorial
here in this city for the Adams family; not only John Adams, but John
Quincy Adams, who, when he left the Presidency, served in this body, in
the House of Representatives, for 17 years, and died just 50 or 60
yards down the hallway. So I appreciate his efforts, and hopefully we
can be part of doing both of them.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I insist on my point of order.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just wanted to rise in support
of the gentleman's idea. On my wall here in my Washington office I have
two pictures in one special section. There is a picture of Dr. Martin
Luther King and another one, a photograph of Bobby Kennedy.
It was those two individuals that invited my generation into public
service and into activism at the community level; Dr. King obviously
through his work on the civil rights movement and bringing us all
together, and it was Bobby Kennedy who taught my generation that
politics and government service were in fact an honorable profession.
I remember the time he came to the South Bronx and campaigned there
when he was running for Senator of New York, how excited everybody was
at his excitement about public service, to a generation of Americans,
many from the minority community, who were turned off to the system and
turned off to politics.
Bobby Kennedy continues to be that figure in my life that I look to
as one who paid the ultimate price for asking all of us to come
together to stand up for what we believed in. So I think at a minimum
the gentleman's idea is one that we should fulfill.
I would hope as we move along we pay attention to this idea and that
we do rename the Justice Department building in honor of Bobby Kennedy.
So I support the gentleman, and I commend the gentleman for the work he
does on this.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, let me say there are scores of pictures
throughout Capitol Hill of Bobby Kennedy and in homes everywhere in
America about Bobby Kennedy, his quotes, his dedication to public
service, and with these two statements from these two distinguished
Members, I will continue to pursue this. I am hopeful and optimistic
that we will do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations
Act, 2002''.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
diplomatic and consular programs
For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by
section 801 of the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948, as amended; representation to certain
international organizations in which the United States
participates pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the
advice and consent of the Senate or specific Acts of
Congress; arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament
activities as authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase
of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for
expenses of general administration, $3,166,000,000: Provided,
That, of the amount made available under this heading, not to
exceed $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and merged with,
funds in the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular
Service'' appropriations account, to be available only for
emergency evacuations and terrorism rewards: Provided
further, That, of the amount made available under this
heading, $270,259,000 shall be available only for public
diplomacy international information programs: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $323,000,000 of offsetting collections derived
from fees collected under the authority of section 140(a)(1)
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) during fiscal year 2002 shall
be retained and used for authorized expenses in this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any fees received in excess of
$323,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 shall remain available until
expended, but shall not be available for obligation until
October 1, 2002: Provided further, That no funds may be
obligated or expended for processing licenses for the export
of satellites of United States origin (including commercial
satellites and satellite components) to the People's Republic
of China unless, at least 15 days in advance, the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate are notified of such proposed action.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 19 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 72, line 5, immediately before the period insert the
following:
: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, of the amount made available under this heading,
$7,800,000 shall be available to provide funds for legal
representation for parents who are seeking the return of
children abducted to or from the United States under the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment and claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
{time} 1530
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page H4154]]
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) very much for his
kindness, and I appreciate the fact that this is a very difficult
issue.
I rise today to address how we in Congress can help in a small way to
ease the suffering of families whose children have been abducted to
other countries, usually by a parent of the very child taken. That
creates a very large wall that would keep these parents, American
citizens on American soil, from helping their children.
International parental kidnapping is a complex crime and takes an
enormous toll, both emotionally and financially, on the searching
parents left behind. The Hague Convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction is the primary legal tool to remedy
international child abductions.
Currently, at least 480 Americans are seeking access to a return of
their children abducted in foreign countries who are signatories to The
Hague Convention. At any given time, an estimated 300 families are
searching for their children abducted from the United States. Often,
these families must incur thousands of dollars in legal fees to try to
obtain the return of their children.
Legal representation is frequently beyond the financial reach of most
families seeking the return of their children, sometimes costing
between $20,000 and $40,000 per case in this country. Mr. Chairman, 75
percent of the families who seek return of their children from the
United States qualify for pro bono or reduced legal assistance.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important legislative initiative because of
the reason of being a parent, loving one's child, being able to see
one's child and, many times, these children are abducted to lifestyles
and conditions that do damage to them and prevent them from seeing
another loving parent.
Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano) for his kindness on this amendment and also the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee. The
chairman's history in fighting human rights abuses is world renowned.
I come to this floor not wanting to concede the point of order, but
asking for the point of order to be waived, because I have seen in my
office the pain of parents who cannot find their children, as I chair
the Congressional Children's Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address how we in Congress can help in
a small way to help ease the suffering of families whose children have
been abducted to other countries, usually by a parent of the very child
taken.
International parental kidnapping is a complex crime, and takes an
enormous toll, both emotionally and financially, on the searching
parents left behind. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction is the primary legal tool to remedy
international child abductions. Currently, at least 480 Americans are
seeking access to or return of their children abducted to foreign
countries who are signatories to the Hague Convention. At any given
time, an estimated three hundred families are searching for their
children abducted to the United States.
Often these families must incur thousands of dollars in legal fees to
try to obtain the return of their children. Legal representation is
frequently beyond the financial reach of most families seeking their
return of their children, sometimes costing between $20,000 and $40,000
per case in this country. Seventy-five percent of families who seek
return of their children from the United States qualify for pro bono or
reduced fee legal assistance.
Because the United States, through the concurrent jurisdiction of
federal district courts and state courts provided for in our
implementing legislation, has thousands of judges who may hear a given
case, our system is even more dependent than others on the knowledge of
the attorneys and their ability to educate the court on the issues
involved.
The cost of bringing a Hague Convention case in court varies from
state to state, but we typically private attorneys charge a retainer
between $5,000 and $10,000. The hourly rate, of course, depends upon
the attorney involved, but $150 or $200/hour is typical. Applicant
parents also pay court filing fees and other expenses associated with
the case.
Nearly every country signatory to the Hague Convention provides free
legal assistance to parents seeking the return of internationally
abducted children. The Convention requires that if a country takes an
exception to the specific provision of legal aid in these cases, as
does the United States, then they must provide the same legal aid
services to the foreign applicant parents that are available to citizen
parents. The U.S. is not currently meeting even this obligation to
parents who seek legal aid for children abducted to this country and,
coupled with residency requirements and other restrictions, the
existing options for legal aid in this country are unreachable even for
those foreign citizens who might qualify financially.
The U.S. Department of Justice has a list of attorneys willing to
handle cases on a pro bono basis, often as a learning experience. And
while some do very well, it can be difficult to find experienced help
in every case. We must do more for these searching parents, and aid
them in obtaining the proper legal representation to facilitate the
return of their children.
In countries where legal aid is unavailable, a resource bank of low-
fee or pro bono attorneys should be developed. Furthermore, all
countries should take steps to establish a travel fund and a counseling
and psychological treatment center for victim families. The work of
Central Authorities and non-governmental organizations with regard to
helping and supporting victim families needs to be recognized and
funded.
We in Congress have expressed a keen interest in requiring the
Department of State to report on the shortcomings of treaty-partner
countries. Although the United States' leadership in this field is
appropriate, we must make sure that we address our own shortcomings as
we point out those of others.
This amendment will provide a source of funds to help pay for the
legal representation that parents of abducted children desperately need
when seeking the return of their children from countries who are
signatories to the Hague Convention. Although the $7.8 million will not
fully fund all legal fees for those who seek, it will help those who
have the most need.
Please join me and Congressman Lampson in supporting this budget
neutral amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill
to assist these families as they search for their children--and help
them to resolve their cases more quickly with the best legal
representation they require and deserve. This bill earmarks the money
from the State Department's funds for Administration of Foreign
Affairs, Diplomatic and Consular programs and would be funds well
spent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who chairs the Missing and Exploited
Children's Caucus. We both serve in each other's caucus. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson) has been to The Hague on this very important
issue.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee-Lampson
amendment that would appropriate $7.8 million to the Department of
State to provide funds for legal representation for parents who are
seeking the return of children abducted to or from the United States
under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction. I am chairman and founder of the Congressional Caucus on
Missing and Exploited Children, and I have been active on this issue
for over 3 years.
Last year, this body passed H. Con. Res. 293, a resolution that
called on signatories to The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction to abide by the provisions of The Hague
and also recognized some weaknesses in certain provisions.
What I hear over and over again from both American parents and non-
American parents is that the financial burden of legal expenses is
overwhelming. One father with whom I have spoken has spent over several
million dollars in travel expenses, attorneys' fees and court fees in
Italy, and I have heard from numerous parents who have spent over
$200,000 in their fights for the return of their children or just the
opportunity to see their children. Nearly every country signatory to
The Hague Convention provides free legal assistance to parents seeking
the return of internationally abducted children. The United States does
not.
Mr. Chairman, we must do more for these searching parents and aid
them in obtaining the proper legal representation to facilitate the
return of their children. In countries where legal aid is unavailable,
a resource bank of low-fee, pro bono attorney's fees should be
developed, and that is what this amendment does.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee-Lampson
amendment to appropriate $7.8 million for our Nation's searching
parents.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a list
[[Page H4155]]
of pro bono attorneys at the Department of Justice is a nice idea, but
those attorneys are just learning; and they cannot provide the legal
expertise for these terrible fights that these parents have, $20,000,
$40,000, $60,000 to psychologically break the bond between parent and
child. I would hope that we would have the opportunity to pursue this
amendment and work with the very distinguished chairman and ranking
member.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition, and I
reserve a point of order on the amendment. I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me say I do think the gentlewoman is onto something that is very
important. I have worked on a couple of these cases, one dealing with
two young children in Serbia. My administrative assistance, Charlie
White, who has since died, and myself met with Milosevic on this issue.
The mother was from California, was very articulate and was very able
to get CBS and ABC to do news stories, but what about someone who
really cannot?
Perhaps we could put some report language in also asking Legal
Services to also look at something like this. There may be somewhere in
Legal Services that someone could become an expert, could give some
guidance to a mom or dad that is faced with this.
I also did not see the story, but my kids did, of the Sally Fields
movie, ``Not Without My Daughter.'' I think is the name of that movie.
So I think the gentlewoman is onto something very important. We will
work with the gentlewoman to do some language or do something to see if
we can push the ball a little farther forward so that if a mom or a dad
is in some situation that there is some place to go or some help or
some guidance. So we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on a point of order and make a point
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing
law and constitutes legislation in the appropriations bill and,
therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) like
to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say that, because of the nature of this issue, I
had hoped that we could waive the point of order and allow some help
for these desperate families. But I must say to the gentleman from
Virginia, I want to thank him, and I think the ultimate goal is to work
this through. Let me thank the gentleman for his offer, and let me say
that I would like to work with him on this matter.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I concur; and I look forward to working
with both of my colleagues on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing
law. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to at this time
offer out of order my ``Buy American'' amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following new section:
Sec. __. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act shall be made available to any person or
entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy American
Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As my colleagues know, I had two amendments at the desk. At the
request of both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the fine
chairman in his first term of this subcommittee, and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano), our outstanding ranking member, I will not
offer the second amendment that deals with overcrowding of Federal
prisons, except to say when there were great headlines of one murder
and killing in a private prison, that same year there were nine
murders, killings in Federal prisons. I am advising both of these
Members to take a look at the conditions of overcrowding, rape and
serious problems in the Federal Prison System that have been swept
under the rug.
Mr. Chairman, back to my specific amendment here that is being
offered, and I would like the chairman's attention.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am confused as to which amendment we are
discussing. Is this the Buy American?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. I will not offer the other
amendment. I have advised both the chairman and ranking member to look
seriously at overcrowding and rape and serious problems in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is why we opposed the Hinchey amendment
last night that proposed to take $73 million out of the Bureau of
Prisons for that very reason. I think the gentleman is right.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to reflect
briefly on my amendment on the floor.
Over the July 4 holiday when Americans celebrate Independence Day,
the National Symphony Orchestra on the mall was performing, Mr.
Chairman, and vendors were passing out on the mall to all those who
came from throughout the United States to be a part of the Washington
celebration of our freedom, they were passing out small plastic flags
that were made in China. It may not seem like much, but I think we are
giving away the farm. I think our trade policy sucks more than the
suckerfish, and I think it is time we get a grip on this.
The amendment simply says, anybody who has a prior conviction of
having violated the Buy American law in this country is not eligible
for any monies in this bill. It has been attached to every other bill,
and it should be approved without great debate.
But I am saying to Congress, we have a massive $300 billion-plus
trade deficit in America; 20,000 American jobs lost per billion of
trade deficit. Now, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to
figure out what is happening in this country.
So, with that, I would hope for his approval of this amendment; and I
yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking
member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, we are in support of the gentleman's
amendment; and we congratulate him on his work.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote. I thank both
the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to go out of order
under the circumstances.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 83, line 22, be considered as read, printed in
the Record and open for amendment at any point.
[[Page H4156]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 72, line 6, through page 83, line 22
is as follows:
In addition, not to exceed $1,343,000 shall be derived from
fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use
of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act, as
amended; in addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act,
$490,000, to be derived from the reserve authorized by that
section, to be used for the purposes set out in that section;
in addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United
States Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to
exceed $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and
publication programs and from fees from educational advising
and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in
addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from
reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House
facilities.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
$487,735,000, to remain available until expended.
capital investment fund
For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
$210,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$29,264,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980, as amended (Public Law 96-465), as it
relates to post inspections.
educational and cultural exchange programs
For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized, $237,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended, may be credited to this
appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in
connection with English teaching, educational advising and
counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as
authorized.
representation allowances
For representation allowances as authorized, $6,485,000.
protection of foreign missions and officials
For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services, as authorized, $9,400,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2003.
embassy security, construction, and maintenance
For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300),
preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for
buildings that are owned or directly leased by the Department
of State, renovating, in addition to funds otherwise
available, the Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the
Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized,
$470,000,000, to remain available until expended as
authorized, of which not to exceed $25,000 may be used for
domestic and overseas representation as authorized: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall
be available for acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or
generators for other departments and agencies.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
acquisition, and construction as authorized, $815,960,000, to
remain available until expended.
emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service
For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.
repatriation loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $612,000, as authorized:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $607,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account
under Administration of Foreign Affairs.
payment to the american institute in taiwan
For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act, Public Law 96-8, $17,044,000.
payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund
For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $135,629,000.
International Organizations and Conferences
contributions to international organizations
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, $850,000,000: Provided, That
any payment of arrearages under this title shall be directed
toward special activities that are mutually agreed upon by
the United States and the respective international
organization: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for a
United States contribution to an international organization
for the United States share of interest costs made known to
the United States Government by such organization for loans
incurred on or after October 1, 1984, through external
borrowings: Provided further, That, of the funds appropriated
in this paragraph, $100,000,000 may be made available only
pursuant to a certification by the Secretary of State that
the United Nations has taken no action in calendar year 2001
prior to the date of enactment of this Act to increase
funding for any United Nations program without identifying an
offsetting decrease elsewhere in the United Nations budget
and cause the United Nations to exceed the budget for the
biennium 2000-2001 of $2,535,700,000: Provided further, That
if the Secretary of State is unable to make the
aforementioned certification, the $100,000,000 is to be
applied to paying the current year assessment for other
international organizations for which the assessment has not
been paid in full or to paying the assessment due in the next
fiscal year for such organizations, subject to the
reprogramming procedures contained in Section 605 of this
Act: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this
paragraph may be obligated and expended to pay the full
United States assessment to the civil budget of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
contributions for international peacekeeping activities
For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, $844,139,000: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for
any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission
unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the new or
expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or
in an emergency as far in advance as is practicable): (1) the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and other appropriate committees of the
Congress are notified of the estimated cost and length of the
mission, the vital national interest to be served, and the
planned exit strategy; and (2) a reprogramming of funds
pursuant to section 605 of this Act is submitted, and the
procedures therein followed, setting forth the source of
funds that will be used to pay for the cost of the new or
expanded mission: Provided further, That funds shall be
available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a certification
by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees of
the Congress that American manufacturers and suppliers are
being given opportunities to provide equipment, services, and
material for United Nations peacekeeping activities equal to
those being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading are available to pay the United States share of
the cost of court monitoring that is part of any United
Nations peacekeeping mission.
international commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet
obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or
specific Acts of Congress, as follows:
international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico
For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United
States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for
representation; as follows:
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
$24,705,000.
construction
For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, $5,520,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.
american sections, international commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $10,311,000,
of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for
representation expenses incurred by the International Joint
Commission.
international fisheries commissions
For necessary expenses for international fisheries
commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by
law, $19,780,000: Provided, That the United States' share of
[[Page H4157]]
such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.
Other
payment to the asia foundation
For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the
Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), as amended, $9,250,000,
to remain available until expended, as authorized.
eisenhower exchange fellowship program trust fund
For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 2002, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.
israeli arab scholarship program
For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2002, to remain
available until expended.
east-west center
To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying
out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to
the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between
East and West in the State of Hawaii, $9,400,000: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to
pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the
payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5376.
national endowment for democracy
For grants made by the Department of State to the National
Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National
Endowment for Democracy Act, $33,500,000, to remain available
until expended.
RELATED AGENCY
Broadcasting Board of Governors
international broadcasting operations
For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, as authorized, to carry out international
communication activities, including the purchase,
installation, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio and television transmission and
reception to Cuba, $453,106,000, of which not to exceed
$16,000 may be used for official receptions within the United
States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be used for
representation abroad as authorized, and not to exceed
$39,000 may be used for official reception and representation
expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and revenue from
business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in receipts from
cooperating international organizations, and not to exceed
$1,000,000 in receipts from privatization efforts of the
Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau,
to remain available until expended for carrying out
authorized purposes.
broadcasting capital improvements
For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase
and installation of necessary equipment for radio and
television transmission and reception as authorized,
$25,900,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized.
General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency
Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and for hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to provide equipment, technical support,
consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there amendments to that portion of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2002''.
TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
maritime security program
For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $98,700,000, to remain available until
expended.
operations and training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $89,054,000, of which
$13,000,000 shall remain available until expended for capital
improvements at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.
ship disposal
For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime
Administration, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $30,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2002, commitments to
subsidize loans authorized under this heading shall not
exceed $1,000,000,000 without prior notification of the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $3,978,000, which
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operations and Training.
administrative provisions--maritime administration
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities
and services and make necessary repairs in connection with
any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government
property under control of the Maritime Administration, and
payments received therefore shall be credited to the
appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That
rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy
for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs
shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal
year from the construction fund established by the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in
any prior Appropriations Act.
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
salaries and expenses
For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad, $489,000, as authorized by section
1303 of Public Law 99-83.
Commission on Civil Rights
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,096,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ
consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in
excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the
Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each
Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse
Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the
exception of the chairperson, who is permitted 125 billable
days.
Commission on International Religious Freedom
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304,
$1,499,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized,
$500,000, to remain available until expended.
[[Page H4158]]
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31
U.S.C. 1343(b); non-monetary awards to private citizens; and
not to exceed $30,000,000 for payments to State and local
enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant
to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, $310,406,000: Provided, That the
Commission is authorized to make available for official
reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500
from available funds.
Federal Communications Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not
to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed
$500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to
buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed 16) and hire
of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $238,597,000, of which not to
exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2003, for research and policy studies: Provided, That
$218,757,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and
collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2002
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2002 appropriation
estimated at $19,840,000: Provided further, That any
offsetting collections received in excess of $218,757,000 in
fiscal year 2002 shall remain available until expended, but
shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 2002.
Federal Maritime Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902,
$15,466,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
Federal Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $2,000 for
official reception and representation expenses, $155,982,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for
use to contract with a person or persons for collection
services in accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718, as
amended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, not to exceed
$155,982,000 of offsetting collections derived from fees
collected for premerger notification filings under the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C.
18a) shall be retained and used for necessary expenses in
this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2002, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2002 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $0, to remain
available until expended: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available to the Federal Trade Commission shall be
available for obligation for expenses authorized by section
151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242; 105 Stat. 2282-2285).
Legal Services Corporation
payment to the legal services corporation
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
as amended, $329,300,000, of which $310,000,000 is for basic
field programs and required independent audits; $2,500,000 is
for the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as
may be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $12,400,000 is for management and administration;
and $4,400,000 is for client self-help and information
technology.
administrative provision--legal services corporation
None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2001 and 2002, respectively.
Section 504(a)(16) of Public Law 104-134 is hereafter
amended by striking ``if such relief does not involve'' and
all that follows through ``representation''.
Marine Mammal Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended,
$1,732,000.
National Veterans Business Development Corporation
For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business
Development Corporation as authorized under section 33(a) of
the Small Business Act, as amended, $4,000,000.
Pacific Charter Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Pacific Charter Commission,
as authorized by the Pacific Charter Commission Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-570), $2,500,000, to remain available until
expended.
Securities and Exchange Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
$109,500,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 2002 to
remain available until expended, and from fees collected in
previous fiscal years, $328,400,000, to remain available
until expended; of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used
toward funding a permanent secretariat for the International
Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to
exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for
consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with
foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members
of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff
to exchange views concerning developments relating to
securities matters, development and implementation of
cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and
provision of technical assistance for the development of
foreign securities markets, such expenses to include
necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the
expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in
attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (1)
such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such
attendance; (2) any travel and transportation to or from such
meetings; and (3) any other related lodging or subsistence:
Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections
6(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4))
and 31(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78ee(d)) shall be credited to this account as offsetting
collections: Provided further, That fees collected as
authorized by section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) for sales transacted on, and with
respect to securities registered solely on, an exchange that
is initially granted registration as a national securities
exchange after February 24, 2000 shall be credited to this
account as offsetting collections: Provided further, That for
purposes of collections under section 31, a security shall
not be deemed registered on a national securities exchange
solely because that national securities exchange continues or
extends unlisted trading privileges to that security.
{time} 1545
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Oxley
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Oxley:
Page 94, beginning on line 9, strike ``: Provided further,
That fees'' and all that follows through line 20 and insert a
period.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill to strike language that would amend the Federal
securities laws with respect to the treatment of certain SEC fees.
The provisions that my amendment would strike pertain to an issue
that has already been addressed in much more comprehensive form in the
form of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act.
That bill, which was approved in the House with a resounding
bipartisan vote of 404 to 22, reduces the excess fees
[[Page H4159]]
that investors are currently paying in connection with securities
transactions, IPOs, and other securities activities.
My amendment strikes language that would change the treatment of
certain exchange-traded transactions for purposes of allocating fees
charged under section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act for
budgetary purposes.
Rather than addressing this issue in a piecemeal fashion and outside
the consideration of the committee of jurisdiction, and that would be
the Committee on Financial Services, it should be addressed, as it
already has been, in H.R. 1088.
I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his cooperation on this
matter, as well as for his support of H.R. 1088, and urge all Members
of the body to support my amendment to reduce SEC fees in a
comprehensive manner, rather than in the appropriations process. I urge
support for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment. We have spoken with the
gentleman from the class of 1980, and we have no objection to the
amendment.
We want to assure the gentleman that these provisions were not
intended to infringe upon the gentleman's jurisdiction in any way.
Lastly, if there are any unforeseen circumstances, as we mentioned to
the gentleman, in which the gentleman's legislation is not enacted, the
committee will need to reconsider the inclusion of this language in the
conference report.
But it is a good amendment, and we strongly accept it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just want to reiterate what the
chairman just said. We, of course, support the gentleman's amendment;
but if we run into this problem that the gentleman's bill is not
passed, we would hope that he will join us in making sure that this
language is put back in. He is shaking his head.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Small Business Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
105-135, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$303,581,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by
the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing
activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be
credited to this account, to be available for carrying out
these purposes without further appropriations.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $11,927,000.
business loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, to be available
until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans,
$77,000,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which
$45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2002 commitments to
guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed
$3,750,000,000: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2002 commitments for general business loans authorized under
section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended, shall not
exceed $10,000,000,000 without prior notification of the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act:
Provided further, That during fiscal year 2002 guarantee
commitments under section 303(b) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed
$4,100,000,000.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
Page 96, line 10, strike ``$4,100,000,000'' and insert the
following:
the levels established by section 20(h)(1)(C) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note)
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment, along with my colleague, the
ranking minority member on the Committee on Small Business, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and thank her for her help.
This amendment is very simple. It increases the guaranteed commitment
levels for the Small Business Administration's two Small Business
Investment Company programs to reflect the levels established by
Congress in the SBA Reauthorization Act. It does not call for any
increased spending.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) is going to accept the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment. The gentleman has
worked with us in developing this amendment. We have no objection to
it.
However, I would note that we have assumed a zero subsidy rate for
the SBIC programs based on anticipated authorization changes.
I am sure the gentleman is aware that in the event those changes are
not enacted, that both the SBIC programs do not operate with a zero
subsidy rate, we will certainly not be in a position to maintain such a
generous program level limitation.
With that, we accept the amendment and congratulate the gentleman.
Mr. MANZULLO. The gentleman is correct in his assumption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 107, line 20, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 96, line 11, through page 107, line
20, is as follows:
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $129,000,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.
disaster loans program account
For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, as amended, $84,510,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $120,354,000, which may be transferred
to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses,
of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of
the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of
disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office
of Inspector General; of which $110,000,000 is for direct
administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry
out the direct loan program; and of which $9,854,000 is for
indirect administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount
in excess of $9,854,000 to be transferred to and merged with
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
administrative provision--small business administration
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation
[[Page H4160]]
shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any such
transfers: Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this
paragraph shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under
section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
State Justice Institute
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572; 106 Stat. 4515-4516),
$6,835,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2002, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2002, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of
both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency
repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
shipyards located outside of the United States.
Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering
harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which such funds are made
available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect
from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on
October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds: (1) that the United Nations undertaking is
a peacekeeping mission; (2) that such undertaking will
involve United States Armed Forces under the command or
operational control of a foreign national; and (3) that the
President's military advisors have not submitted to the
President a recommendation that such involvement is in the
national security interests of the United States and the
President has not submitted to the Congress such a
recommendation.
Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2002.
Sec. 611. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to provide the following amenities or personal
comforts in the Federal prison system--
(1) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who are
segregated from the general prison population for their own
safety;
(2) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through
whatever medium presented;
(3) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or
training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or
other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting
equipment of any sort;
(4) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates or
heating elements; or
(5) the use or possession of any electric or electronic
musical instrument.
Sec. 612. None of the funds made available in title II for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
under the headings ``Operations, Research, and Facilities''
and ``Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' may be used
to implement sections 603, 604, and 605 of Public Law 102-
567: Provided, That NOAA may develop a modernization plan for
its fisheries research vessels that takes fully into account
opportunities for contracting for fisheries surveys.
Sec. 613. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 614. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in
this Act to the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to
distribute or make available any commercially published
information or material to a prisoner when it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that such information or material is
sexually explicit or features nudity.
Sec. 615. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance'', not more than 90 percent of the
amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an
entity when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity
that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined
in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public
safety officer who retires or is separated from service due
to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a
personal injury sustained in the line of duty while
responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as
such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better
level of health insurance benefits at the time of retirement
or separation as they received while on duty.
Sec. 616. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 616 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as amended.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) of section 616 of that Act, as
amended, is further amended--
(1) by striking ``Claudy Myrthil,''.
[[Page H4161]]
(c) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section
616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year
2002.
Sec. 618. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law may be used for: (1) the
implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the
implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); and (2) any system to
implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result
in the destruction of any identifying information submitted
by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to
be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Sec. 619. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts deposited or available in the Fund established under
42 U.S.C. 10601 in any fiscal year in excess of $575,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until the following
fiscal year.
Sec. 620. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 621. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be available for the purpose of granting either immigrant or
nonimmigrant visas, or both, consistent with the Secretary's
determination under section 243(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or
residents of countries that the Attorney General has
determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of
citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents under that
section.
Sec. 622. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this section of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 623. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to
article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States
Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant
to article 25 of the Protocol.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Olver:
Page 107, beginning on line 21, strike section 623
(relating to Kyoto Protocol).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have is a simple one. It detracts
nothing from the respect that I have for the chairman, who has done
such a good job with this bill, nor of the ranking member, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who has joined him in presenting
what I think is, in whole, an excellent bill.
But I rise to strike section 623 from this legislation, which, as
indicated, would be a provision on any funding used for anything,
really, related to global warming. I hope that this amendment would be
accepted.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, for the most part, this bill is an excellent bill, and
I greatly respect the outstanding work of the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, and of the ranking member on
the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York.
I rise to strike section 623, an anti-environmental rider, which is
meant to prevent any and all action to address the climate change
caused by global warming.
Last week, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and I offered
this same amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill which was
graciously accepted by the Chair and adopted by voice vote. Less than 2
months ago, this House adopted a sense of the Congress relating to
global warming, in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, and that
sense of Congress pointed out that global climate change poses a
significant threat to national security. And just this morning, the
Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from
new York, removed this egregious language from that bill. I am
extremely pleased to see that the debate on global warming, in the
House of Representatives, is moving in the right direction.
Regardless of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, there is overwhelming,
peer reviewed, sound scientific evidence that global warming is
occurring, and substantially due to human influence--the National
Academy of Science has very recently reaffirmed that fact. Placing a
gag order on federal agencies can only stifle our ability to address
this critical environmental issue--at a time when carefully considered,
but comprehensive action is needed.
As I explained last week, this rider is not new. It dates back to the
Clinton Administration, when the majority believed with good reason
that President Clinton would have acted to implement Kyoto.
But President Bush has made it clear that he has no intention of
implementing the Kyoto Protocol. He has even declared the Kyoto
protocol ``dead.''
So, if this Administration isn't even remotely thinking about
implementing the Kyoto Protocol, what is the language that this
amendment would strike really about?
It is really about preventing any serious progress at all on global
warming--our most serious environmental issue for the 21st century. The
rider is used to badger federal agencies and to demand repeated
explanations for their environmental activities. The Inspector General
was recently forced to investigate alleged violations of the rider by
the EPA, Department of Energy, and the State Department and found no
instances of violation.
This rider jeopardizes executive agency work on any and every issue
related to climate change--which the U.S. is obligated to address as
part of the United Nations framework Convention on climate change.
Remember that the UN Framework Convention on climate change was
proposed for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush
in September 1992, ratified by the Senate in October 1992, and took
force in 1994.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has an obligation to be an
international leader on global warming. We owe it to our children who
deserve to inherit a healthy planet. The consequences of global warming
will not be mild and we must being to act soon.
The American public wants this Congress and this Administration to
find a way to address global warming. How we do that, is NOT the
subject of today's debate. This vote has nothing to do with
implementing or even liking the Kyoto Protocol.
I urge this body to pass this and all remaining Appropriation bills,
free of this ill-conceived and unneeded rider. Allow our agencies to
search for ways and measures authorized by the already ratified UN
Framework to begin addressing greenhouse gases.
I urge a yes vote on the Gilchrest/Olver amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Departmental Management
emergency oil and gas guaranteed loan program account
(Rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading
from prior year appropriations, $115,000,000 are rescinded.
emergency steel guaranteed loan program account
(Rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading
from prior year appropriations, $10,000,000 are rescinded.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Of the amounts made available under the heading
``Immigration and Naturalization Service, Enforcement and
Border Affairs'', $20,000,000 may be used for a program of
alternatives to detention for aliens
[[Page H4162]]
who are not a danger to the community and are not likely to
abscond.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Point of Order
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will state his point of
order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it provides for an appropriation for an unauthorized program,
and it therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on
the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is
recognized.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on
the Judiciary, the authorizing subcommittee, the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims. In that capacity, I am seeing on a regular
basis the impact that this amendment tries to address.
This amendment would earmark a relatively small amount of INS
detention funds, $20 million, for the implementation of alternatives to
detention for those persons who are not a danger to society and are not
in danger of absconding.
The financial and human costs of detaining foreign nationals in the
United States has increased exponentially in recent years. INS
detention costs now total more than $1 billion a year. More than 22,000
aliens are currently detained by the INS, and the number is growing.
Sixty percent of detained aliens are held in local and county jails.
The rest are detained in INS-owned and operated facilities. Many of
these detained are neither a danger to themselves or their communities,
and they are not in danger of absconding. Detaining these people wastes
valuable Federal resources that could be put to better use.
Detention is not only costly in dollars, it is costly, as well, in
terms of human suffering, as people are needlessly separated from loved
ones. Often the person in the detention is the breadwinner.
Asylum seekers, children, and other people with strong community ties
should not be detained. The INS should support alternatives to
detention nationwide. Faith-based and other organizations are willing
to work with the INS to make such projects work.
I urge the committee to adopt this amendment that will be allowed to
utilize alternative detention, particularly for those who are not
prepared to abscond, are not dangerous to society, and are simply
seeking the opportunity to be free in this country, away from
persecution.
I believe this is a right direction and a response to those who are
not in any way endangering the lives and conditions of Americans, like
children, like families, and like those who simply want to be free.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman insists on his point of order.
Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the
Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill under
Clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Such an earmarking must be specifically
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization in law
rests with the proponent of the amendment.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is
sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to remove, deport, or exclude any alien from the
United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act for
conviction of a crime if the alien--
(1) before April 1, 1997, entered into a plea agreement
under which the alien pled guilty to the crime that renders
the alien inadmissible or deportable; and
(2) after June 25, 2001--
(A) requests discretionary relief under section 212(c) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect at the time
of the alien's plea agreement) on the ground that the opinion
of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S.
__ (2001) renders the alien eligible to seek such relief; and
(B) has not received a final order of removal, deportation,
or exclusion upon denial of such request.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will be recognized in
opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
{time} 1600
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
and the chairman, and I hope that by the time I conclude we will have
an opportunity to agree on this amendment because it seeks to comply
with a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court that aliens
who came to a plea agreement prior to the enactment of the 1996 Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Illegal Immigration
Reform and Responsibility Act be afforded their due process rights by
enabling them to seek relief from removal under the same circumstances
that existed prior to the effective date of these 1996 acts.
In essence, this is simply to allow due process, which certainly is,
I believe, an important remedy on the floor of this House.
Specifically, my amendment would amend H.R. 2500 to specify that none
of the funds in the bill may be used to remove, deport, or exclude an
alien for a conviction of a crime if the alien entered into a plea
agreement before April 1, 1997, or who, after June 25, 2001, requested
212(c) relief, which gives the Attorney General discretion to waive
deportation of resident aliens under the Immigration and Naturalization
Act, pursuant to the recent Supreme Court decision in INS v. St. Cyr,
or who has not received a final deportation removal order.
On June 25, 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
in the case of INS v. St. Cyr that people who had pleaded guilt to a
deportable offense at a time when they may have been eligible for
relief from removal under then section 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act remain eligible for the 212(c) waiver. Under the
Supreme Court ruling, so long as an immigrant was eligible for 212(c)
waiver at the time of his or her guilty plea under the law as it
existed at that time, they remain eligible for the waiver regardless of
when the INS started deportation or removal proceedings.
There have been reports by some attorneys who represent clients who
have become eligible for relief pursuant to the Supreme Court's St. Cyr
decision that the INS is moving to remove them from the United States,
despite their possible eligibility for a waiver and to be able to apply
due process under the Supreme Court case.
I would suggest that if aliens who are represented by attorneys are
being removed despite the decision of the Supreme Court, it is almost
certain there are some individuals who are not represented who are also
eligible for relief. Because there is no procedure to allow a person
who has been removed from the United States to pursue 212(c) relief
from outside the country, an individual who is removed from the United
States would therefore be ineligible for the very relief which the
Supreme Court has said they are now entitled to.
My amendment would not provide relief legislatively to any
individuals. The decision on whether to grant relief would be up to the
immigration judges. I do not interfere with that process. Those judges
will be required to weigh the individual circumstances with the
requirements of the law as the law existed prior to the enactment of
AEDPA and the IIRIRA. Removal of these individuals prior to
ascertaining the eligibility for 212(c) relief would constitute
[[Page H4163]]
an unconscionable violation of their due process rights, in
contravention of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I urge my colleagues to consider this correction, which is without a
request for funding. It is, in essence, budget-neutral. It is simply to
reinforce the due process that is necessary to provide anyone with
their right to access justice.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we really should not be going here. We should not be
doing this. We are not the authorizers. This is so complex. It is my
understanding that the INS is still trying to interpret this case and
its subsequent impact on the INS.
We understand the gentlewoman is seeking to ensure that aliens
qualified under the St. Cyr decision benefit from the decision, but I
am not sure if the amendment does that or goes farther. The Committee
on the Judiciary has concerns. We have been trying to reach the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), who is chairman of the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims; but he is not available.
This is a very complicated case. There are legions of lawyers at the
INS still trying to figure this out, and I would not want, nor do I
think the Congress would want, to impose another layer that would only
complicate this issue. So this is just not a place we should go, and I
strongly urge that we oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act may be used to prohibit states from participating in
voluntary child safety gun lock programs.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for
5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence.
We have found over the course of this debate dealing with safety and
guns, and I want to remove this from being a divisive debate, that we
have a lot that we can agree upon. In fact, the President of the United
States himself, while the Governor of the State of Texas, supported
voluntary trigger lock programs. This particular amendment is a
limitation and does not have a budget impact. It simply asks that we
not allow any funds to be utilized to prohibit the utilization or the
implementation of voluntary safety lock programs in the States
throughout the Nation.
Each year, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000
accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die. In addition,
every year 1,300 children use firearms to commit suicide. In 1998, the
year for which the most recent total statistics are available, there
were 1,971 juvenile deaths attributable to firearms. Of the juvenile
total, 1,062 were homicides or due to legal interventions; 648 were
suicides; 207 were unintentional; and 54 were of unknown causes. From
1993 to 1998, firearm-related deaths for juveniles have decreased by an
average rate of 10 percent annually, for an overall decrease of 40
percent.
However, even one child who dies from a gun death is one too many.
And I am sure that we all can come to an agreement that we have had a
meeting of the minds on the value of voluntary trigger lock programs,
safety programs that, one, can be taught in the school; and, two, can
engage parents and communities to be able to assist us in working
together. I also have had hearings on the issue of bullying in the
schools, so I recognize that there are many elements to violence among
children. But if we can do anything that would ensure that we have a
common agreement, it is to be able to support safety locks and the
technology behind them.
I would also just say to my colleagues that safety locks have been
tested. The committee has reported that no funds shall be obligated for
the purchase and distribution of gun safety locks until the National
Institute of Standards and Technology develops national standards for
the locks, but we are also asking that that not prevent individual
jurisdictions from participating in a gun safety lock program.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join in supporting
this amendment, which has no statement on a Member's support or
nonsupport on guns. It only says we want to make sure that our children
are safe.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to Title I of the appropriations bill,
which provides spending for the Department of Justice, states that no
federal funds can be used to prohibit states from participating in
voluntary gun child safety-lock programs.
As a parent and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, the
safety of children is of utmost concern to me. For example, this year I
have introduced H.R. 70, a bill which would prohibit keeping a loaded
firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises
knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable
of gaining access to it and will use the firearm to cause death or
serious bodily injury.
Even more alarming, is the fact that the number of homicides
committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old
age group increased sharply from 1985 to 1993; they have declined since
then, but not to the 1985 level. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, from 1985 to 1993, the number of firearm-related homicides
committed by 14- to 17-year-olds increased by 294%, from 855 to 3,371.
From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm-related homicides committed by
persons in this age group decreased by 65%, from 3,371 to 1,165. A
Department of Justice survey indicated that 12.7% of students age 12 to
19 reported knowing a student who brought a firearm to school. We have
made valuable strides in protecting our youth from gun violence, but we
have not done enough.
This Congress and the Administration have taken an important step in
this bill by requesting $75 million for Program ChildSafe. According
the majority Committee's report on this program, it will help make sure
that gun safety locks are available for every handgun in America.
Although this legislation does not require gun safety locks, as should
be done, its intent is commendable.
However, by offering this amendment, I want to make sure that there
is no other ``back door'' legislation that will act to discourage
states from participating in this or any other federally funded program
that provides gun safety locks.
Gun safety locks will not save all our children from death from a
gun. However, they do play an important role in protecting children who
get access to a gun. It is important that at both the state and federal
levels our government supports these efforts, not hampers them.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to simply say that we accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 29 offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), amendment No. 28 offered by
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), amendment No. 17 offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and amendment No. 21 offered
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
[[Page H4164]]
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 29 offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 217, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 239]
AYES--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Gilman
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Paul
Riley
Spence
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1634
Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RANGEL, TOWNS, TURNER, BOSWELL, and FLETCHER changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 239 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by appreciating the members of
the committee, the floor managers, and the Members with amendments for
their cooperative work today. We are making fine progress on this bill.
There is every reason for us to understand that we can complete our
work on this bill this evening. So after this series of votes, I am
going to ask the committee to go back to this bill. We would expect to
complete our work on this bill this evening. We would then probably
find it late in the evening, too late, to pick up H.R. 7 tonight, so we
would turn our attention to H.R. 7 in the morning as the first order of
business following the rule.
I want to again thank everybody for their cooperation and say, let us
go back to work and get this bill done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I agree with the gentleman that the
committee is making good progress. There are still a number of hurdles
that we are going to have to get over tonight if we are going to be
finished. It will require the cooperation of every Member in terms of
limiting time on amendments which we will try to get done. We are not
there yet, but I hope that we can get there if we have a reasonable
sense of flexibility on Members' part.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I may just remind all the Members, unless
you had a particular fire burning in your heart, you would always find
it an attractive option to put it in the Record.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute vote.
[[Page H4165]]
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 215, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
AYES--215
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--215
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--3
Hutchinson
Riley
Spence
{time} 1646
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. DeLay
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 6, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
AYES--424
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
[[Page H4166]]
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--6
Ackerman
Clay
Hastings (FL)
McDermott
Mink
Stark
NOT VOTING--3
Riley
Shows
Spence
{time} 1654
Mr. STARK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 242, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
AYES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--242
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--2
Riley
Spence
{time} 1704
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 242 on H.R. 2500 I
mistakenly recorded my vote as a ``no'' when I should have voted
``yes.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano), I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my intent to offer today an amendment to
this bill that would have been a straight limitation on the Federal
Communications Commission prohibiting the Commission from implementing
any change in the current rules related to media cross-ownership and
concentration of media ownership issues.
I am concerned with the current level of concentration in media
markets. I think there are too few media outlets in many markets across
the country. A concentration of media power into the hands of a few
media companies is an issue I think every one of us in this body ought
to be concerned about, and I think we need to take a closer look at
this issue. That was the purpose of my amendment.
I am concerned that the current group of commissioners on the FCC,
particularly the chairman, does not share this concern and may even be
laying the groundwork for relaxing or even eliminating some of the
media ownership limitations on the books at the FCC.
My amendment would not have tied the agency's hands in considering
proposed changes. I just wanted to make sure that the Congress had an
opportunity to review the proposals in the
[[Page H4167]]
appropriate forum before the FCC could implement any changes to those
rules. My amendment, therefore, would have delayed until the end of the
year the implementation of any proposed changes to the rules addressed
in media cross-ownership and concentration.
I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, shares many of my concerns;
and I know he also had concerns about the amendment I was considering
because he feared it would tie the hands of the Commission to respond
to any court order challenging the current rules, if there is such a
court order, during the fiscal year.
So I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman. Knowing
of the gentleman's concerns regarding the issue of diversity in the
media and maintaining the voice of local broadcasting, I would urge him
to keep this issue at the front of the debate on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and I would ask the gentleman one question: Can he
tell us if the authorizing committee intends to hold hearings on the
issue of media ownership?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the
gentleman for his position.
Second of all, I want to thank him for yielding.
Third of all, I want to tell the gentleman that I strongly agree with
him. I assure the gentleman that I share his concerns about excessive
concentration of ownership in media markets. In fact, I think there is
too much concentration at this time. In fact, I just recently wrote the
chairman of the FCC, as the gentleman knows, and expressed my strong
belief that the current broadcast ownership cap should be retained and
that the public interest requires that that be done. However, I also
believe that the amendment originally proposed by my friend might have
had some unintended consequences; and I want to thank him for deciding
not to offer it today.
I will assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I will
work with him in all kind of ways and on all occasions to try and see
to it that his view and my view prevail on the matter of increasing
concentration in the media.
There are several court cases pending that many believe will remand
certain media ownership rules back to the FCC for further consideration
and revision. Unless and until the FCC acts pursuant to a court order,
there would be no ownership limitations in place if the amendment
carried. That is an outcome that I believe neither of us would like to
see.
I will assure the gentleman from Wisconsin that I will continue to
work within the legislative committee. It will be my intent to work
with my good friend from Wisconsin to assure that existing constraints
on excessive media concentration are maintained. To that end, I am
going to be requesting the chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce to hold hearings on that topic so that we can make better
informed judgment as to how we might best protect the American public
from the very real dangers that media concentration and media ownership
concentration issues present.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I
want to commend him for what he has had to say today, and I wish to say
to him again, I agree with him.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Let me simply say that I think that is a very helpful comment from him.
I think Members need to understand that we are in danger of seeing
news outlets in this country virtually homogenized. We are in danger of
seeing many local voices stilled by these constant mergers and mega-
mergers between media corporations. We need a diversity of media
expression in this country, and I hope that the FCC does not contribute
to the exact opposite, as I fear they may be planning, and I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Reynolds) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________