[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20098-20137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 273 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. 
2670.

                              {time}  1350


                     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. 2670) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 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 on 
Wednesday, August 4, 1999, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) had been disposed of and the bill was open for 
amendment from page 47 line 6 through page 48 line 5.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics 
     for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $142,320,000, to remain available until expended.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     (NTIA), $10,940,000, 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 NTIA 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 
     the 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, $18,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $1,800,000 shall be 
     available for program administration as authorized by section 
     391 of the Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     section 391 of the Act, 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, $13,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000,000 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 section 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.

                      Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted 
     against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, 
     $735,538,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of this amount, $735,538,000 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 further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     General Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2000, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2000 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at $0: Provided further, That, during fiscal year 
     2000, should the total amount of offsetting fee collections 
     be less than $735,538,000, the total amounts available to the 
     Patent and Trademark Office shall be reduced accordingly: 
     Provided further, That any amount received in excess of 
     $735,538,000 in fiscal year 2000 shall remain available until 
     expended, but shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 2000: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $116,000,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 1999 shall be 
     made available for obligation in fiscal year 2000.

                         Science and Technology

                       Technology Administration


       under secretary for technology/office of technology policy

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $7,972,000.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             scientific and technical research and services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $280,136,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.

[[Page 20099]]




                     industrial technology services

       For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, $99,836,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     may be provided for Federal financial assistance to a 
     Regional Center for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology 
     (``Center''), beyond six years at a rate in excess of one-
     third of the Center's total annual costs or the level of 
     funding in the sixth year, whichever is less, subject before 
     any renewal to a positive evaluation of the Center through an 
     independent review.


                  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, $56,714,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this 
     heading, $44,916,000 shall be available for obligation and 
     expenditure only after submission of a plan for the 
     expenditure of these funds, in accordance with section 605 of 
     this Act.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 53 line 13 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft; not 
     to exceed 250 commissioned officers on the active list as of 
     September 30, 2000; 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; 
     $1,477,738,000, 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, $67,226,000 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 $1,621,616,000 provided for in direct 
     obligations under this heading (of which $1,477,738,000 is 
     appropriated from the General Fund, $71,226,000 is provided 
     by transfer, $34,000,000 is derived from fees, if enacted 
     into law, and $38,652,000 is derived from unobligated 
     balances and deobligations from prior years), $235,900,000 
     shall be for the National Ocean Service, $350,545,000 shall 
     be for the National Marine Fisheries Service, $260,560,000 
     shall be for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, $599,196,000 
     shall be for the National Weather Service, $100,656,000 shall 
     be for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 
     Information Service, $57,594,000 shall be for Program 
     Support, $7,000,000 shall be for Fleet Maintenance, and 
     $10,165,000 shall be for Facilities Maintenance: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $31,439,000 shall be expended for 
     Executive Direction and Administration, which consists of the 
     Offices of the Under Secretary, the Executive Secretariat, 
     Policy and Strategic Planning, International Affairs, 
     Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, Sustainable Development, 
     the Chief Scientist, and the General Counsel: Provided 
     further, That the aforementioned offices, excluding the 
     Office of the General Counsel, shall not be augmented by 
     personnel details, temporary transfers of personnel on either 
     a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis or any other type of 
     formal or informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or 
     funds on either a temporary or long-term basis above the 
     level of 33 personnel: Provided further, That no general 
     administrative charge shall be applied against any assigned 
     activity included in this Act and, further, that any direct 
     administrative expenses applied against assigned activities 
     shall be limited to five percent of the funds provided for 
     that assigned activity: 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.
       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.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       Page 53, line 26, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,000)''.
       Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,000)''.
       Page 54, line 13, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,000)''.
       Page 54, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $390,000)''.
       Page 56, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $390,000)''.

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment dealing with the 
problem on the Great Lakes, and I thank the chairman for all he has 
done on the Great Lakes in this legislation. Notably, the committee has 
funded the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory at last year's 
level after the administration cut it in their budget submission, and 
we appreciate the chairman's action on that.
  In May of this year, NOAA's National Ocean Service proposed the 
elimination of 13 of 49 water level gauging stations on the Great 
Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. These stations provide valuable water 
level data used by several different agencies and institutions to 
predict water levels and monitor water flows at specific points in the 
lakes.
  I am proposing an amendment that would increase NOAA's operation 
budget by $390,000 to upgrade these stations and ensure that they will 
continue to provide valuable research data.
  Due to record-low water levels in the Great Lakes, it is more 
important than ever to maintain a monitoring network for research into 
the hydrologic cycles in the Great Lakes Basin.
  The downsizing was prompted by the need to upgrade and automate these 
stations, which NOAA claims could not be accomplished within the 
existing operational budget constraints. Several agencies, including 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories, and the International 
Joint Commission, which is currently conducting a year-long study of 
water levels on the Great Lakes, objected to the closure of these 
stations.
  Several of the affected stations provide key comparisons for the 
long-term record of water levels, and many stations located in 
connecting channels provide key information on water transfer between 
the lakes.
  Local communities would be the most severely affected by the loss of 
data from stations located at upstream sites. For example, Lake Erie 
water levels are most directly affected by the rate of water flow 
through the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers.
  This is a very important issue in the Great Lakes. I appreciate all 
the chairman has done. I understand that he also looks favorably upon 
this amendment. I hope that is correct, and, if so, we can bring this 
debate to a rapid conclusion.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought to the Committee's attention 
a very important matter. We have examined the amendment and agree with 
the gentleman and thank him for bringing this matter to our attention 
and support the amendment.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Ehlers' 
amendment to increase funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) operations budget by $390,000. It is imperative 
that the 13 National Ocean Services (NOS) water level gauging stations 
upgrade their computer networks to Y2K compliance.
  Sturgeon Point--the gauging station in my district--is essential. It 
predicts floods in times of high water and aids navigation in times of 
low water on Lake Erie. Without Sturgeon Point, and the other 12 
stations, much industry and recreation could be paralyzed in Buffalo 
and all of the Great Lakes region.
  The $390,000 provided to the National Ocean Service by the amendment 
meets the estimated cost of upgrading the additional 13 stations. When 
the new technology comes on

[[Page 20100]]

line, NOAA estimates that operational expenses should fall to 
approximately half of the current level. Using those estimates, the 
system upgrades should pay for themselves in just over five years.
  Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a summer that we could see the need 
for these stations, it is this one. With water levels falling from 
drought and the threat of despair we can see that these stations can 
aid us in getting through the heat of the summer and thaw of the 
spring.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague and friend from Grand Rapids.
  Earlier this year, the National Ocean Service proposed eliminating 13 
of 49 water level gauging stations in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 
River system due to a budget insufficient to address Y-2-K compliance 
problems.
  This proposal was advanced without consulting many of the 
constituencies who rely on the data of this Water Level Observation 
Network, including shoreline residents, local governments, recreational 
and commercial fishermen, and shippers of commerce from Great Lakes 
ports to points worldwide.
  In my own district, two water-gauging stations were proposed for 
closing: one on the Detroit River and one in Lake Erie near the City of 
Monroe. WIthout these stations, other federal agencies such as the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot 
provide needed services that support recreational uses, commercial 
uses, and the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Michigan is offering a commonsense 
amendment to address a critical need for Great Lakes protections, and I 
urge the House to accept it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section?
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today not to speak to what is in the bill but 
what is not in the bill. Specifically, the Advanced Technology Program. 
This program was created with bipartisan support under the Bush 
administration.
  The Advanced Technology Program has as its basic mission to benefit 
the U.S. economy by cost-sharing research within industry to foster new 
and innovative technologies. The ATP invests in risky, challenging 
technologies that have the potential for a big payoff for the U.S. 
economy.
  There have been many arguments made about the ATP over the years, but 
most of them have been addressed. Unfortunately, this has not been 
included in this year's appropriations, and I think it is to the 
detriment of our economy and to our high-tech industries as well.
  The ATP is industry driven. Its research priorities are set by 
industry, not the government. For-profit companies conceive, propose, 
and execute ATP projects and programs based on their understanding of 
the marketplace and research opportunities. Far too often this 
particular fact has either been misunderstood or misrepresented.
  The ATP is not a product development program, as many people have 
argued. The ATP does not fund companies to do product development, it 
instead funds R&D to develop high-risk technology to the point where it 
is feasible for companies to begin product development, but that they 
must do on their own.
  ATP also embodies fair competition. They are rigorous, they are fair, 
and they are based entirely on technical and business merit. Too often 
people argue about this program by saying the government is picking 
winners and losers. That is not true. And small companies compete just 
as effectively as large companies for ATP grants. Roughly half of the 
ATP awards have gone to small companies or joint ventures led by a 
small company. ATP is in fact a partnership. It is not a free ride for 
winning companies.
  Many people have argued that we can sustain this loss of funding 
because tax credits can take the place of the ATP. In fact, tax credits 
cannot replace ATP. R&D tax credits are an important policy tool for 
encouraging research and innovation by industry, but they are not a 
substitute for the Advanced Technology Program.
  The Advanced Technology Program has been evaluated and reevaluated. 
It has shown that many of the projects that have taken place would not 
have been done or would not have been done in the same way or as 
quickly without the ATP.
  Lastly, two more issues I want to point out is that university 
participation in ATP is an important aspect of the program. Out of the 
352 projects selected by the ATP since its inception, 189 of the 
proposals included plans to involve one or more universities. Lastly, 
small businesses also participate greatly in this program.
  The ATP works, Mr. Chairman, and it would be a shame for us to lose 
it. This body should oppose its elimination.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Terry:
       Page 53, line 26, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 88, line 3, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. TERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that my colleague from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman) is a cosponsor of this amendment. We are joined by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and others.
  Our amendment addresses a situation that was first brought to my 
attention by Bruce and Christine Bowen of Omaha, Nebraska. They are 
parents of two Merchant Marine Academy midshipmen. As one who believes 
strongly that we must do right by those who serve our country, what 
they told me and showed me upset me into action. The Terry-Ackerman 
amendment will help correct a problem that has been lingering for quite 
some time.
  The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, located in Kings Point, New York, 
is in desperate need of repair. This 55-year-old academy has been 
neglected for far too long. The last 5 years it has been funded at 
roughly $31 million annually, which is just enough to operate the 
facility without doing any maintenance. Consequently, a backlog of 
basic maintenance projects exists, totaling $20 million. This is 
unacceptable. Something has to be done.
  Let me tell my colleagues how serious the situation is at the 
Merchant Marine Academy. The lack of maintenance has caused pipes to 
explode in the library, damaging a collection of rare books. Water 
pipes are so old that there are signs posted in the building ``Lead in 
Drinking Water.'' The heating system is so antiquated that the 
temperature in the rooms is regulated by opening all the doors and 
windows.
  I have some pictures here that illustrate some of what I am saying. 
Mr. Chairman, the Merchant Marine Academy has become the lost son. All 
of our other military academies have received or will receive 
substantial sums of money for new construction or improvements. The 
U.S. Military Academy at West Point received $30 million to upgrade its 
cadet mess hall and will receive $75 million to build a new gym.
  The U.S. Naval Academy will receive $41 million per year for the next 
12 years to upgrade all of its midshipmen dorms. The Merchant Marine 
Academy is not looking for a new building. It just wants those that it 
has repaired.
  If we demand a commitment of 10 years from the graduates of the 
academy, we should make sure that they have a learning environment 
conducive to that commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment will begin the process of returning the 
Merchant Marine Academy to the level it deserves. The amendment I am 
offering now is a modification of the original

[[Page 20101]]

version. It will provide $2 million for maintenance at the academy, 
enough to repair some of those leaky roofs, under the Maritime 
Administration.
  Before concluding, I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) a question.
  It has been the practice of the Maritime Administration to pay for 
certain overhead expenses of the entire agency, including the academy. 
There have been proposals to require the academy to pay portions of the 
overhead costs, which could result in a loss as much as $1.8 million to 
the academy.
  I understand that the committee intends that all the monies provided 
to the academy in fiscal year 2000 are to be used for the same 
functions as was the case in fiscal year 1999. In other words, no 
additional administrative expenses may be imposed on the academy by the 
Department of Transportation or Maritime Administration.
  I ask the gentleman, am I correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is the intent 
of the committee that the Maritime Administration will continue to pay 
certain administrative costs related to the academy in the same fashion 
as in 1999.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his 
strong initiative.
  I rise in support of the Terry-Ackerman amendment, which, as we have 
heard, would add $2 million for the critical facility maintenance 
program at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, which is located in my 
district on the north shore of Long Island.
  The academy plays a vital role in maintaining the economic and 
national security of our country and is one of the five Federal Service 
academies. Kings Point's mission is to train young men and women to 
serve and to lead in our Merchant Marine, our Armed Forces, and in the 
transportation field.
  In times of peace, these Merchant Mariners contribute to our 
international trading prosperity. In times of war, it is the Merchant 
Mariners who enable our country to move troops and materiel anywhere, 
anytime.
  Despite rising costs over the years, the funding has remained nearly 
static for each of the last 5 years. The result of this level of 
funding is a real dollar budget cut for Kings Point. The 55-year-old 
infrastructure is in need of millions of dollars of capital maintenance 
repair projects.
  Included in these projects are barracks renovation, Y2K compliance 
requirements, maintenance of the 220-foot training vessel, the King's 
Pointer, instructional technology and training requirements, and 
improvements in waterfront renovation.
  Congress has already recognized the need for additional funds for the 
Merchant Marine Academy. In their report for the Defense Authorization 
Bill for fiscal year 1999, the House Committee on Armed Services said 
that they are ``concerned about the deteriorating material condition of 
the physical plant of the midshipmen barracks at the Merchant Marine 
Academy.''
  They go on to say, ``The plant is antiquated and in need of 
replacement before it becomes a health and safety concern to the 
midshipmen and the staff.''
  It is to this facility, Mr. Chairman, that, as Members of Congress, 
we nominate some of the finest young men and women so that they might 
study and become graduates of the academy. We must work to ensure that 
the academy is safe and conducive to this training.
  This funding for fiscal year 2000 will help it achieve this goal so 
that the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy can achieve their mission of 
providing our country with the highest quality Merchant Marine 
officers.
  I ask all of our colleagues to join with us in supporting this 
critical amendment.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the panel that authorizes the 
funding for the Maritime Administration and under it the Merchant 
Marine Academy, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nebraska.
  The Merchant Marine Academy is one of the most distinguished higher 
educational institutions in America. If we rated it in keeping with the 
outstanding record of its graduates, it would be in the top 15 colleges 
or universities of America. It is truly an outstanding institution.
  It also is in outstanding need of long-deferred maintenance that this 
amendment, at least, will contribute toward.
  My panel authorized a $7-million increase for maintenance at the 
Merchant Marine Academy. But I understand that the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee that handles this in the appropriations 
has not had the funding that he could do that.
  I appreciate that which I understand he is willing to do to 
contribute toward a building on this badly needed maintenance program. 
I can only tell my colleague and forewarn him that in the next budget 
submission we will see larger sums because this only begins to address 
a need that is clearly identifiable and must be addressed. It has been 
neglected too long.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman. It is true that the Merchant Marine Academy has in so many 
ways been totally forgotten, and the description and presentation of 
the gentleman shows the problem.
  So I just want to, very briefly, be supportive of the amendment but 
at the same time remind us that we would accomplish helping the 
Merchant Marine Academy by cutting some funds from NOAA. So I would 
hope that, in the process that continues here as we go on to 
conference, we can find the monies to make up the changes that we have 
made. But I rise in strong support of the amendment and hope it can be 
approved.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry) has worked with us and the Committee on Resources in proposing 
this amendment.
  I also continue to hear from alumni and families of current students 
at the academy about the dire state of the facilities there. I believe 
this amendment will help to address that problem, particularly to 
improve the living conditions of the midshipmen.
  I have no objection to the amendment and support its adoption and 
commend the gentleman for his fine work.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of the Terry amendment. 
While I applaud the gentleman's effort for attempting to increase 
funding for the Merchant Marine Academy, the offsets that the gentleman 
has proposed will be devastating to an already depleted National Marine 
Fishery Service budget and thus devastating to America's rural 
fishermen.
  Like farmers, fishermen are a cornerstone of our country's cultural 
heritage as well as our economy. The U.S. commercial and recreational 
fishing industries generate more than $25 billion to our economy and 
employ approximately 300,000 men and women per year.
  As important as they are to our economy, many fishermen in my 
district and in the Northwest are going through difficult times. Stocks 
are minimal and harvest is declining. Rural fishermen in my district, 
especially in towns like Astoria, Warrenton, Hammond and Clatskanie are 
going through a difficult transition period as we work to rebuild 
depleted stocks of salmon and steelhead. Their livelihood depends on 
what they yield from the rivers and oceans.
  As a country, we have recognized that through a variety of different 
causes, the fish that these fishermen harvest are threatened to the 
point of extinction. We have committed desperately needed resources to 
help restore salmon runs and trout populations. By cutting

[[Page 20102]]

the NMFS budget further, we are underfunding fishermen in my state and 
all over the country.
  The National Marine Fishery Service works with state and local 
entities to ensure the stability and restoration of our ecosystem. An 
additional $14 million cut to the NMFS budget, beyond the $27 million 
already cut in the bill, would significantly reduce the agency's 
already compromised ability to fulfill its congressional mandates to 
conserve and rebuild our nation's valuable marine fisheries and marine 
resources. Not funding NMFS at adequate levels is equal to an unfunded 
mandate.
  We have heard the rhetoric of this country's commitment to rural 
Americans, and yet this is one more attack on rural America. These 
rural fishermen depend on the harvest they get from their nets and 
depend on NMFS to ensure that there will be a harvest for their 
children. The monitoring of fish stocks that NMFS oversees is helpful 
in two ways: one, if the stocks are improving, fishermen are made aware 
and harvest will increase; two, if the stocks are collapsing, fishermen 
are made aware and harvest will decrease, so that the remaining fish 
are saved.
  The gentleman's amendment strikes at the very heart of NMFS ability 
to help endangered and threatened species recover. A 15% cut in 
conservation and management programs and a 20% cut in endangered 
species recovery programs would gut much needed assistance to rural 
farmers.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting against the Terry 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:


               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, 
     $480,720,000, 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.


                      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 
     $4,000,000, for purposes set forth in sections 308(b)(2)(A), 
     308(b)(2)(B)(v), and 315(e) of such Act.


    promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to 
                           american fisheries

                       fisheries promotional fund

                              (Rescission)

       All unobligated balances available in the Fisheries 
     Promotional Fund are rescinded: Provided, That all obligated 
     balances are transferred to the ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'' account.


                      fishermen's contingency fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95-372, not to exceed $953,000, 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), and 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 
     $189,000, to remain available until expended.


                   fisheries finance program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $238,000, 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.

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $30,000,000.


                      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), $22,000,000.

               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. None of the funds provided in this or any 
     previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department 
     of Commerce, shall be available to reimburse the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund or any other fund or account of the Treasury to 
     pay for any expenses authorized by section 8501 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for services performed by individuals 
     appointed to temporary positions within the Bureau of the 
     Census for purposes relating to the decennial censuses of 
     population.
       Sec. 205. 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. 206. (a) Should legislation be enacted to dismantle or 
     reorganize the Department of Commerce, or any portion 
     thereof, the Secretary of Commerce, no later than 90 days 
     thereafter, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate a plan for 
     transferring funds provided in this Act to the appropriate 
     successor organizations: Provided, That the plan shall 
     include a proposal for transferring or rescinding funds 
     appropriated herein for agencies or programs terminated under 
     such legislation: Provided further, That such plan shall be 
     transmitted in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
       (b) The Secretary of Commerce or the appropriate head of 
     any successor organization(s) may use any available funds to 
     carry out legislation dismantling or reorganizing the 
     Department of Commerce, or any portion thereof, to cover the 
     costs of actions relating to the abolishment, reorganization, 
     or transfer of functions and any related personnel action, 
     including voluntary separation incentives if authorized by 
     such legislation: Provided, That the authority to transfer 
     funds between appropriations accounts that may be necessary 
     to carry out this section is provided in addition to 
     authorities included under section 205 of 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. 207. 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. 208. 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. 209. 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,

[[Page 20103]]

     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 2000 
     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 2000 and each fiscal year thereafter 
     shall be available for obligation and expenditure only in 
     accordance with section 605 of 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, 2000''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title II 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read 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, $35,041,000.

                    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), $6,872,000, of which $3,971,000 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, $16,101,000.

               United States Court of International Trade

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and 8 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, $11,804,000.

    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, $2,934,138,000 (including the 
     purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed 
     $13,454,000 shall remain available until expended for space 
     alteration projects; and of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended 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 
     $2,138,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.
       In addition, for activities of the Federal Judiciary as 
     authorized by law, $156,539,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by section 190001(a) of 
     Public Law 103-322, and sections 818 and 823 of Public Law 
     104-132.

                           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 (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; and 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), $361,548,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i).st
       In addition, for activities of the Federal Judiciary as 
     authorized by law, $26,247,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by section 19001(a) of 
     Public Law 103-322, and sections 818 and 823 of Public Law 
     104-132.

                    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)), $63,400,000, 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 the procurement, installation, and maintenance of 
     security equipment and protective services for the United 
     States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including 
     building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages, 
     directed security patrols, and other similar activities as 
     authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $190,029,000, of 
     which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for security systems, to be expended directly or 
     transferred to the United States Marshals Service, which 
     shall be responsible for administering elements of the 
     Judicial 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, $54,500,000, 
     of which not to exceed $7,500 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, $17,716,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2001, 
     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), $29,500,000; to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $8,000,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $2,200,000.

                  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, 
     $8,500,000, 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

[[Page 20104]]

     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 $10,000 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.
       This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 2000''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title III 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment pending to this title in the 
bill. The offeror is on his way to the floor as we speak, and I did not 
want to let this title pass without the gentleman being able to offer 
his amendment.
  I am wondering if we can secure unanimous consent that when the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) arrives on the floor he would be 
able to offer his amendment out of turn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am trying 
just to find out what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is 
trying to accomplish.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
preparing to offer an amendment to this title. We moved rather swiftly 
on the preceding matters, and he is on his way to the floor as we 
speak. I am hoping that we could be able to proceed and do his 
amendment, even out of turn, when he arrives.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I ask the gentleman, 
when do we expect the gentleman to be here?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am told momentarily.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection .
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objecton to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:

            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 
     expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956, as amended, the Mutual Educational Exchange Act 
     of 1961, as amended, and the United States Information and 
     Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 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 such Act; expenses authorized by section 9 of 
     the Act of August 31, 1964, 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 disarmanent 
     activities as authorized by the Arms Control and Disarmament 
     Act of September 26, 1961, as amended; acquisition by 
     exchange or purchase of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by law; and for expenses of general 
     administration, $2,482,825,000: 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, $306,057,000 
     shall be available only for public diplomacy international 
     information programs: Provided further, That of the amount 
     made available under this heading, not to exceed $1,162,000 
     shall be available for transfer to the Presidential Advisory 
     Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States: Provided 
     further, That any amount transferred pursuant to the previous 
     proviso shall not result in a total amount transferred to the 
     Commission from all Federal sources that exceeds the 
     authorized amount: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $267,000,000 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 2000 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 $267,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 
     shall remain available until expended, but shall not be 
     available for obligation until October 1, 2000.
       In addition, not to exceed $1,252,000 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 
     (Public Law 90-553), 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 accordance with section 46 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2718(a)).
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $254,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                        capital investment fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $80,000,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized in Public Law 103-236: 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 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $28,495,000, 
     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 by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, as amended (91 Stat. 
     1636), $175,000,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by section 105 of such Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2455): Provided, That not to exceed $800,000, to remain 
     available until expended, may be credited to this 
     appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in 
     connection with English teaching and educational advising and 
     counseling programs as authorized by section 810 of the 
     United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 
     1948 (22 U.S.C. 1475e).


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized by section 905 
     of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     4085), $4,350,000.


              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $8,100,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001.


           security and maintenance of united states missions

       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

[[Page 20105]]

     by the Department of State, renovating, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available, the Main State Building, and carrying 
     out the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as 
     authorized by title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and 
     Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), $403,561,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized by section 
     24(c) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 
     (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)): Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
     acquisition of furniture and furnishings and generators for 
     other departments and agencies.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $313,617,000, 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 pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 
     3526(e), and as authorized by section 804(3) of the United 
     States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as 
     amended, $5,500,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by section 24(c) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)), 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, $593,000, as authorized by 
     section 4 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671): 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, $14,750,000.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $128,541,000.

              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, $842,937,000: 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 on 
     a semi-annual basis pursuant to a certification by the 
     Secretary of State on a semi-annual basis, that the United 
     Nations has taken no action during the preceding 6 months to 
     increase funding for any United Nations program without 
     identifying an offsetting decrease during that 6-month period 
     elsewhere in the United Nations budget and cause the United 
     Nations to exceed either the reform budget for the biennium 
     1998-1999 of $2,533,000,000 or a zero nominal growth budget 
     for the biennium 2000-2001: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph may be obligated and 
     expended to pay the full U.S. 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, $200,000,000: 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 that 
     will 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.


                           arrearage payments

       For an additional amount for payment of arrearages to meet 
     obligations of authorized membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, and to pay assessed expenses of 
     international peacekeeping activities, $244,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this 
     heading for payment of arrearages may be obligated or 
     expended unless such obligation or expenditure is expressly 
     authorized by the enactment of an Act that makes payment of 
     arrearages contingent upon United Nations reform: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this heading for payment of arrearages 
     may be obligated or expended until such time as the share of 
     the total of all assessed contributions for any designated 
     specialized agency of the United Nations does not exceed 22 
     percent for any single member of the agency, and the 
     designated specialized agencies have achieved zero nominal 
     growth in their biennium budgets for 2000-2001 from the 1998-
     1999 biennium budget levels of the respective agencies: 
     Provided futher, That not to exceed $107,000,000, which is 
     owed by the United Nations to the United States as a 
     reimbursement, including any reimbursement under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the United Nations Participation 
     Act of 1945, that was owed to the United States before the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall be applied or used, 
     without fiscal year limitations, to reduce any amount owed by 
     the United States to the United Nations, except that any such 
     reduction pursuant to the authority in this paragraph shall 
     not be made unless expressly authorized by the enactment of 
     an Act that makes payment of arrearages contingent upon 
     United Nations reform.


              Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
       In title IV, under DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Arrearage Payments, 
     strike the first proviso.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very 
straightforward amendment. It removes the requirement that the $244 
million in the bill for paying our U.N. arrearages be subject to an 
authorization. My amendment does not change the reforms in this bill 
which the U.N. must meet before receiving the money. I want to repeat 
that again. This amendment does not change the reforms in the bill.
  The U.S. owes the U.N. around $1 billion. I find it embarrassing that 
the world's only superpower is the U.N.'s biggest deadbeat. We have a 
legal obligation and I believe that great nations should pay their 
bills.
  Do not just take my word. Here is what seven former U.S. Secretaries 
of State have said. In a letter earlier this year to House and Senate 
leaders, former Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, James 
Baker, Warren Christopher, Cyrus Vance, George Shultz, and Lawrence 
Eagleburger said:

       Our great nation is squandering its moral authority, 
     leadership, and influence in the world. It's simply 
     unacceptable that the richest nation on earth is also the 
     biggest debtor to the United Nations.

  As a pro-life Democrat, I oppose linking payment of U.N. back dues to 
the Mexico City restrictions. These are different issues which need to 
be considered separately. When we link abortion with U.N. arrears, in 
my opinion, we take a moral issue and we twist it to serve other 
purposes. We try to make it fit where it does not belong.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people support the work of the United 
Nations and they want us to pay the dues that we owe. Polls show that 
70 percent have a favorable opinion of the United

[[Page 20106]]

Nations and 80 percent of Americans, 80 percent of American voters, 
oppose linking provisions related to abortion policy.
  Now is not the time to move the goal post. It is time to quit making 
excuses. It is time to do the right thing. It is time for Congress to 
keep its word and pay our dues.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
agree with the gentleman that this country should pay the amounts that 
we owe to the U.N. and other international organizations, but we cannot 
do so at the cost of abandoning the progress made on reforms at U.N. 
From the beginning, our approach has been to provide the arrearages 
only upon the achievement of real and substantial reforms.
  Over the past 2 years, we have made available a total of $575 million 
for arrears. That funding remains available, pending authorization. It 
has been this subcommittee's position for many years now, under 
bipartisan leadership, that the United Nations needs to reform. We are 
after a more effective United Nations. We think that only by reforming 
the bureaucracy, streamlining the processes at the U.N., only then can 
we achieve an effective United Nations. That has been the policy goal 
of this subcommittee and of this Congress, both bodies. That drive for 
U.N. reform continues even today. Thus, we have conditioned the payment 
of the arrearages upon effective, real reform at the U.N. I must say it 
is working. There are achievements that we can point to at the United 
Nations that we can be proud of in reforming the process, in 
streamlining the way they do business, in cutting unnecessary and 
wasteful costs.
  The bill provides the final installment of $351 million to arrive at 
a total of $926 million in arrearages, the full amount that has been 
agreed to by the administration in the pending authorization.
  The reforms that have taken place thus far at the U.N., as I say, 
have been due in large part to the fact that this subcommittee, the 
Committee on International Relations of the House, and of the Congress, 
because we have insisted on these reforms just as we continue to do in 
this bill.
  Reform has been a priority of this Member since I have been chairman 
of this subcommittee and, like it or not, the only leverage that we 
have to ensure that these reforms take place is by making them a 
condition of arrearage payments. We have deferred to the authorization 
committee as is the rules of the House. And we defer to the 
authorization committee in this bill with this very language, making 
the payment subject to authorization. I think that is the appropriate 
way to handle this matter, just as it is the appropriate way to handle 
all matters. The Committee on Appropriations, of course, defers to the 
authorizing committees of the House except where they are in consent 
for some change that they would like in the appropriations bill.
  The pending authorization bill passed by the Senate reflects that. It 
sets out an extensive series of necessary reforms, including reducing 
the U.S. share of assessments and maintaining a zero nominal growth 
budget, that is, a freeze. The rates of assessments that are being paid 
to the U.N. are based on 1945 standards. I submit to the Chair that the 
condition of the nations that make up the U.N. have changed 
dramatically in that period of 50-plus years. There are new world 
economic powers that did not exist at that time, i.e., Japan, Germany, 
and, yes, even China, to name a few. Yet the assessment level has not 
changed in all that time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we achieved a change, a reduction, in 
the rate of payment that the U.S. has to pay to support the U.N. It is 
a modest change, from 25 percent down to 22. I would like to see 20. 
But, nevertheless, it is a substantial change.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, these reforms are essential and we should 
all insist upon them as our responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer, and 
the Congress has gone along with our recommendations for the last 
several years.
  The gentleman's amendment would give an unauthorized $244 million to 
the U.N., and send the signal to the U.N. and the rest of the world 
that we are no longer committed to reform. That is exactly the wrong 
message that we should be sending.
  I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman 
from Ohio's amendment. First of all let me say that I congratulated the 
gentleman from Kentucky, and I do once again, for taking serious steps 
to deal with this issue. I continue to ask him to do even more in 
conference and in the future to make sure that we pay our bills. But I 
do not want the gentleman to think that our support of this amendment 
does not salute and compliment the fact that he has tried to pay our 
bills. It is the fact that we are paying our bills in a very strange 
way, by dealing with issues that are not related to the fact that we 
have to pay our bills. That is the problem.
  The problem, as the gentleman from Ohio has well stated, is that we 
run the risk of losing our vote and our membership in the U.N., our 
vote in certain parts of the U.N. and our membership in certain world 
organizations related to the U.N., if we do not pay our dues. We should 
really be very careful here today to understand that those of us who 
rise in support, in strong support, of the Hall amendment are not doing 
it because we want to somehow stop our involvement in the U.N. On the 
contrary. It is those who attach riders to this issue who may want to 
find this as an excuse to tie up our involvement in the U.N. We want 
our involvement to continue. We want the U.N. to reform.
  Please understand that the moneys that we have approved in the past 
and that are pending now speak to reform at the U.N. But we cannot be 
asking for reform at the U.N. and then behaving in somewhat of a 
childish way in suggesting that whatever dollars go to pay our dues, 
not extra dollars we are giving them for something else but dollars 
that go to pay our dues, have to be based on whether or not they will 
do things that nobody else in the world agrees with us on. It is 
totally improper to do that.
  I would hope that as we look at the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, 
we fully realize what is at stake here. If the U.S. does not pay its 
arrears to the U.N. in the 106th Congress or approve payment of our 
fiscal year 2000 dues without strings and conditions in the U.N., we 
could lose our General Assembly vote by January of 2000. I do not think 
anyone has really paid attention to that. I mean, the thought of us 
losing our vote by January of 2000 at the U.N. is something that no one 
should be planning to do.
  We keep calling on the U.N. to participate with us in some missions, 
that not everybody, by the way, agrees with, but we keep calling on the 
U.N. to participate, to support us, to be a partner, and at the same 
time we continue to say that we will run the risk of not being a full-
fledged member.
  I would hope, and I will close with this, I do not want to take too 
much time, that we separate the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky 
in my opinion has done a very good job at making sure that we move 
forward on this issue from the fact that as we move forward to pay up 
part, or all of it, it should never be linked to anything else.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to note at 
this early stage of this discussion, there are actually two different 
types of conditions, if you will, that we are talking about the 
appropriation being subject to: One is the population control matter 
that is in the authorization process. The other is other types of 
reform of the operation of the U.N. that are unrelated to that 
population control matter. There is a whole series of those conditions 
for reform, such as reduction of the U.S. rate of assessment to

[[Page 20107]]

22 percent, such as guaranteeing a frozen budget in the out years, and 
various other procedural conditions that are in the authorization 
process. I want us to be sure we understand there are two different 
types of conditions that are being attached to the appropriation. One 
is the population control matter. The other are procedural reforms at 
the U.N. that I think most all of us would agree with.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the gentleman's 
comments. The assertion that the Hall amendment eliminates the reforms 
that this committee is pressing forward with is totally, absolutely 
false and misinformed. The Hall amendment eliminates lines 8 through 18 
in the bill on page 80. That is only the language that refers to the 
requirement for authorization.
  It leaves in place the following language:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this heading for payment of arrearages may be obligated 
     or expended until such time as the share of the total of all 
     assessed contributions for any designated specialized agency 
     of the U.N. does not exceed 22 percent for any single member 
     of the agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Serrano was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. I am continuing to read:

       And the agencies have achieved zero nominal growth in their 
     biennium budgets for 2000-2001 from the 1998-1999 biennium 
     budget levels of the respective agencies.

  That makes it clear. Those reforms stay in place. What the gentleman 
from Ohio is trying to do is to simply get us out of the business of 
being a deadbeat because he understands that we have more leverage, not 
less, if we paid our bills. The fact that we have not paid our bills 
has already cost us $100 million because since we had not paid our 
bills we were not able to convince the U.N. to lower our percentage 
payments for the shared cost of those programs.

                              {time}  1430

  So if my colleagues are interested in saving the taxpayers' dollars, 
pass the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). If 
they are interested in keeping the reforms in place for the U.N., pass 
the Hall amendment. Let us not confuse the facts.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that the 
gentleman's point has to be clear to everyone. That on which we agree 
on, the reforms stay in place under the Hall amendment. It is that 
which has been used as an excuse for us not to pay our dues and to get 
into areas we should not be involved in that he strikes, and that is 
important to note.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would say to my friend I rise against the Hall amendment, and I 
will give my colleagues a few reasons, and I think even some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the issue would agree.
  First of all, I have got the two absolute best daughters in this 
body; but when they are bad, I do not reward them, but when they are 
good, I give them an incentive; and when we are talking about the 
reforms, these long overdue reforms, they have had years to do this, 
and they will not do it.
  The U.N. needs the United States when we are talking about losing a 
vote. We pay the lion's share; with all the different countries in 
there, we pay the lion's share. We only get one vote, and the U.N. 
votes against the United States the majority of time because we only 
get one vote; and as my colleagues know, the other Communist countries 
are in there that always put us down.
  Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples of the U.N. In Somalia 
we lost 18 rangers because U.N. troops had armor there. India, for 
example, had T-64 tanks. They would not commit them. This was when butt 
Butros Butros Gahli was there. Our own President denied armor, and so 
there was none for these troops; and under U.N. leadership in control 
of our troops, we lost a bunch of people.
  Second example. Some of my colleagues may remember when we bombed 
Iraq for the first time. Neither the President nor the Vice President 
nor the Secretary of Defense knew that the United States had gone to 
war. Our troops are bombing, but yet not even our President knew that 
we were in a war time, and I think that is wrong.
  It is not just the U.N.; it is the other organizations as well. For 
example, NATO. Can we afford still that every conflict that we get into 
with NATO for us to pay for 86 percent of the sorties of the flights 
and to pay for 90 percent of the weapons dropped? I think we need a 
reorganization in NATO. Either they need to upgrade their capability, 
or they need to pay the United States. Our next supplemental ought to 
be a check.
  In the U.N. just the cash is counted. When we deploy troops, when we 
have our carriers, when we have our assets there, none of that is 
counted against our 22 percent. I think that is wrong, and when they 
make those concessions, then I am willing to help my colleagues, but I 
think that gives a good incentive first to do that, and I think the way 
that we do it now is wrong.
  If we look at the U.N. members, the limousines, let them stay in the 
Quality Inn. But do they? No. One was quoted: ``No, we deserve to stay 
in the Ritz because it is to the standing of a U.N. member.'' Well, I 
beg to disagree.
  So those kinds of reforms, I think, Mr. Chairman, are very, very 
valuable before, and we pay our arrears, and I am opposed to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this in hard-headed Midwestern 
terms. I do not believe that anybody in this House should vote to spend 
one dime on the United Nations if they think it is to help the United 
Nations or to help somebody else. We are supposed to be defending 
taxpayers' money, and what I would say to my colleagues is: ``Don't 
contribute to the United Nations unless you think that those 
contributions are helping our own country and helping us defend our own 
national interests,'' and they most certainly are.
  What are the fund supposed to be spent for that the gentleman is 
talking about? He is talking about money that has been withheld from 
the World Health Organization. What does that agency do? It is helping 
to eradicate polio around the world. One of its responsibilities is to 
try to deal with one of the most dangerous items known to man, ebola, 
which causes wretched epidemics whenever it breaks out. In a world of 
instant transportation, the United States can just as easily be the 
victim of that as some African or European country. We need to 
eradicate worldwide diseases not just because we are trying to help 
somebody else, but because we are trying to defend our own populations 
from those kinds of diseases.
  Those funds are also supposed to be going to the Food and Agriculture 
Organization to address global famine conditions. Now, if my colleagues 
do not think that it is in the American national interest to eliminate 
famine, then I invite them to remember what has happened in region 
after region around the world when economies are destroyed and when 
agricultural bases are destroyed. What happens is we have political 
instability that leads to the rise of governments that are not in our 
interests, and that often leads to war, and we often get involved in 
those wars.
  We are also holding back funds for the International Labor 
Organization. That is the agency that is supposed to monitor compliance 
with child labor laws. We have had fights week after week on this floor 
about protecting American workers from competition, from goods produced 
in slave labor conditions or produced by child labor around the world. 
What the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is saying is that we do good 
for the world, we do good for America, we do good for our own people 
when we pay our bills and participate fully in an agency that frankly 
we have far more influence in than any

[[Page 20108]]

other country in the world. Does anybody really think the United 
Nations makes any major political decision without the agreement of the 
United States? Very few that I know.
  It just seems to me that it is time to recognize that if we want to 
save our money, if we want us to be able to negotiate a lower payment 
rate to the United Nations, if we want to enhance our ability to do 
tough bargaining at the United Nations, we are in a stronger position 
if we paid our bills than if we have not. And I would point out if we 
do not pay our bills, we will lose our U.S. voting rights in the 
General Assembly eventually.
  So I would suggest there are plenty of reasons to listen to the wise 
counsel of the gentleman from Ohio. We ought to pass this amendment and 
end this outrageous linkage that occurs when a tiny band of Members 
each year find one issue that matters to them more than any other, and 
so they tie up virtually every other issue in this place until they get 
their way.
  Let us have clean, stand-up, up-or-down votes on all of these issues 
rather than linking them until we are virtually tied like Gulliver 
because we have got these lilliputian issues that do not allow the 
Congress to accomplish anything. The gentleman from Ohio is right. He 
saves taxpayers' money in the long run; he serves the U.S. national 
interest. We ought to support him.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The gentleman mentioned the WHO debt, the WHO. The WHO arrearage that 
the gentleman mentioned arose in 1989. It an old bill, and it is a 
fairly small amount, $35 million. We pay our annual contribution to the 
WHO annually. No one disputes that. We are up to date on our annual 
payments. There is an old arrearage in 1989, $35 million; that is still 
in dispute. This arrearage, it is small, it is an old bill, it does not 
impact current operations. I want to be sure that people understand 
that the WHO is up to date on our payments, with our annual payments.
  Let me try very briefly to try to put in perspective a very 
complicated matter. For the last 3 years mainly the Senate has been 
putting conditions on the payment of the arrearages, the so-called 
Helms-Biden bipartisan compromise on U.N. reform. There are 18 of those 
reforms signed off by the President. We are all in agreement on this. 
The President, Helms and Biden in the Senate, and we have deferred to 
that agreement.
  Those conditions for reform, I think most all of us can agree are 
legitimate and correct, recognizing American sovereignty, one; no 
taxation by the U.N.; no standing Army by the U.N.; no interest fees by 
the U.N.; recognition of U.S. real property rights; termination of 
borrowing authority; the assessed share for U.S. peacekeeping 
contributions not to exceed 25 percent; limitations on assessed share 
of regular budget; limitations on the other parts of the budget; 
inspectors general for certain international organizations; new budget 
procedures for the U.N.; a sunset policy for certain U.N. programs; 
U.N. Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary questions; 
access by the General Accounting Office; personnel rules; reduction in 
budget authorities to a flat budget; new budget procedures and 
financial regulations; limitations on the assessed share of the regular 
budget for the designated specialized agencies of the U.N. and so 
forth. There are 18 of those conditions; I think we all agree on them.
  That is really what we are talking about. The President has agreed, 
the Senate has agreed, the House has agreed. We are all in agreement on 
these 18 conditions for reform, and unless and until they are agreed 
to, the arrearages have been withheld. It is a fairly complicated 
thing, but it is simple in that respect.
  Mr. Chairman, I want us to be sure that we understand where we are. 
No one wants us to lose our voting rights in the U.N. I do not think we 
are at that point. We never will be at that point in the Security 
Council, I will point out to my colleagues, and that is the important 
place. But I think we all have to understand that in order to achieve 
these very creditable reforms that the administration and the Congress 
have agreed upon that we should make our moneys subject to, should be 
withheld until we see these substantial reforms.
  Now the amendment that is pending, if it passes, would say, no, let 
us forget all of the conditions that we have required before paying 
these moneys, and let us go ahead and pay the moneys and forget about 
reform. We have too many years invested, we have too much money 
invested. More importantly, we have too much of an international stake 
involved here to let the U.N. continue to be the bureaucratically 
entrenched organization that it is. We want, I want, a more effective 
U.N. We need a U.N. We need an effective U.N. It is not effective now, 
and I think we all can agree upon that. The only way that we have seen 
work has been to force change by the withholding of funds, Mr. 
Chairman, and that is what this debate has been about for these several 
years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would just like to ask, why does the gentleman continue 
to say that this amendment eliminates the conditions when in fact the 
conditions still remain in the bill. I mean saying something 15 times 
that is not so does not make it so.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, our bill that is on the 
floor only contains two conditions. The authorization that would be 
forgiven by this amendment contains 18. The two conditions that are in 
the appropriation bill occur at page 80, and I quote Line 18:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this heading may be obligated or expended until such 
     time as the share of the total of all assessed contributions 
     for any designated specialized agency of the U.N. does not 
     exceed 22 percent for any single member of the agency, and 
     the designated specialized agencies have achieved zero 
     nominal growth in their biennial budgets for 2000/2001 from 
     the 1998/1999 levels.

  Those apply to three international organizations other than the U.N.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I would ask the 
gentleman one additional question: Why should we continue to allow 
appropriation bills to get bogged down by authorization issues? When is 
the last time the authorization committee has been able to pass their 
legislation, except for the year when they were able to attach it to 
the Committee on Appropriations? The answer is 1994. On the foreign aid 
bill, that committee has gone over 10 years without being able to pass 
a foreign aid bill. Why on Earth should we allow a committee that can 
never get its own work done to interfere in our ability to get our work 
done?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have 
to change the rules of the House. The Committee on Appropriations works 
subject to the authorization committees. We appropriate, they pass 
laws. I am still of the belief that the House rules should prevail.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just so my colleagues may know, I chair the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the 
Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
was incorrect. Last Congress, the 105th Congress, we passed and sent to 
the President, he said when did we last passed one, we had a conference 
report, it went down

[[Page 20109]]

to the President, on State Department, it included reform, it included 
arrearages, $926 million for arrearages with very strong conditions and 
a very, very compromised Mexico City policy. Regrettably, the President 
vetoed that bill.
  This issue of arrearages would not be before this body except for the 
appropriations amount that the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman, 
has put into his bill. We had all of these conditions, but the 
President chose to veto that bill. That is unfortunate. Our hope is to 
take another shot at it.
  We are now going to conference soon, it is already staff-to-staff, to 
try to work out this arrearage language that has been passed by Senator 
Helms and Senator Biden working together.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is nice to have a little exchange, instead 
of five minute speeches.
  Let me simply say in response to my good friend, you do not pass a 
bill if all you do is get it out of the Congress. The Constitution says 
that a bill becomes law only when you have agreement between the 
authorizing committee and the executive branch.
  The problem with your committee, very frankly, is it has been so 
extreme in its positions, it has not been able to pass its bills except 
when they attach them to appropriation bills. You have not been able to 
put together a one-car funeral in your own jurisdiction in over 10 
years on foreign aid. Yes, we have an authorization in an appropriation 
process, but that implies that the authorization committee be 
functional. Yours has demonstrated that it is not.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just let me point out to my colleagues, and 
I think they realize this, that the appropriators certainly have an 
advantage in that they are bringing to the floor must-pass bills. The 
authorizers almost by definition are disadvantaged because an 
administration that may not like this provision or that will just say 
we will wait for the money to arrive, because it has to arrive to begin 
the new fiscal year, from the appropriators.
  So the honest negotiation that we hope would take place between 
House, Senate, and the executive branch is largely truncated and 
precluded precisely because the money in some form, usually less 
because of the inability or the lack of wanting to deal with us in good 
faith.
  So the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has led I think a very, 
very fine effort as chairman of our full committee, but we are 
disadvantaged, because, again, it is hard to work out the policy 
language, when they get their money anyway at the end of the day.
  That has not been the case with arrearages. We have insisted on very 
strong, very tight, 15 pages of conditions on the United Nations, 15 
single-spaced pages that the Hall amendment would vacate. It makes our 
bargaining position vis-a-vis the Executive Branch very much 
disadvantaged, and we want strong reform with regard to the U.N., not 
weak.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to the basic issue today and 
rise in strong support of this reasonable amendment to begin to put the 
United States back in good standing at the United Nations.
  When the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and I joined 
in creating the bipartisan Congressional United Nations working group 
at the beginning of the 105th Congress, we never imagined that we would 
be here over 2 years later still demanding that the United States pay 
its arrears to the U.N. It is really extraordinary. But here we are, 
still outraged, still embarrassed, still trying to get the United 
States to live up to its commitments.
  Let me be very clear. It is outrageous that the United States, the 
wealthiest country in the world, is the biggest deadbeat at the United 
Nations.
  This amendment is very straightforward. It takes the empty U.N. 
arrears language in this bill and makes it real. It makes the reforms 
in the bill real. It makes the $244 million in arrears payments in the 
bill real. Quite simply, it removes the smoke and mirrors from the bill 
and puts us back on the road to acting like the world leader we are.
  This funding is critical to United States foreign policy. It shows 
the international community that a commitment made by the United States 
means something, and it gives the U.N. the resources it needs to carry 
on the important work it is doing around the globe.
  The United States has a tremendous amount of influence within the 
U.N., but, frankly, that influence is decreasing with every day that we 
do not pay our arrears. In fact, at the end of this year, as you heard, 
we face the unimaginable prospect of losing our vote in the General 
Assembly under the requirements of Article 19.
  But this issue goes beyond simple embarrassment. How are we to expect 
the U.N. to continue to act in our interests around the world? How can 
we expect them to fund the projects we support, to send peacekeeping 
troops to areas where we want to see more stability, when we do not pay 
our debt? How do we expect to reform the U.N., and I agree with my 
colleagues on the reform measures which are in this bill, and most of 
them, it is my understanding, remain in this bill if we do not pay our 
U.N. dues?
  As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am well aware of 
the limited resources we have been given to fund our international 
activities in recent years. I have seen the United States foreign 
assistance decreased to an almost unimaginable level in the last few 
years. But in this context, paying our debt to the U.N. is even more 
important. The U.N. is a cost effective way for us to leverage U.S. 
funding with that of the other members of the U.N. to make a difference 
around the world.
  I want to reiterate again for my colleagues that what this 
commonsense amendment does is it essentially removes the language which 
makes meaningless the arrears section already in the bill because it is 
tying it to another issue. It leaves in place the reforms included in 
the bill that caps our future U.N. dues at 22 percent and mandates a 
zero growth budget for the U.N.
  So I want to say to my colleagues once again, too often in this body 
we cannot pass and there remains a stalemate on issues such as this 
that are really very important, because we want to tie it, as our 
ranking member said, to another issue. Let us vote on that other issue 
as a clean issue. Let us have that vote, up or down.
  I respect my colleague from New Jersey. Let us have that vote up or 
down. But let us not tie paying our U.N. dues to that issue. Let us 
have that vote cleanly.
  So, again, I want to urge my colleagues to support the Hall 
amendment. Let us pay our U.N. arrears. Let us not be a deadbeat. Let 
us not tie that payment to other issues where there is some 
controversy. I would think that the majority of this body wants to 
stand tall, work together, and pay our U.N. arrears. If there are other 
controversial issues, let us have that debate, but let us take it as a 
separate issue, let us have a clean vote on paying our U.N. arrears 
with the provisions which are included in this bill to reform the U.N.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want to pay U.N. arrears, but we also want to 
reform the U.N. at the same time. I am opposing this amendment for 
three reasons: The Hall amendment is the wrong

[[Page 20110]]

move at the wrong time on the wrong bill.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for supporting the 
foreign relations attempts to reform the U.N. and the Committee on 
International Relations in our efforts to craft a sensible U.N. 
arrearage and reform package. Until this amendment was offered, we felt 
we had made considerable progress in finding a bipartisan way to pay 
our dues and at the same time to reform the United Nations.
  I understand the administration may now have backed away from 
supporting the Helms-Biden compromise, and for that we have deep 
regrets. I note that the foundation of this reform effort was laid by 
our counterparts in the Senate, Senator Helms and his ranking 
Democratic member, Senator Biden. It passed the Senate by an historic 
vote of 98 to 1. The Helms-Biden U.N. reform package is clearly the way 
this Congress should go in paying our arrearages to the U.N. and at the 
same time fixing the U.N. Regrettably, the Hall amendment would wipe 
out that compromise.
  The effect of the Hall amendment would be to fork over $244 million 
to the U.N. without requiring any new major reform already agreed to by 
our President. As the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations and as a Member representing part of New York, I strongly 
support paying our U.N. dues, but I do not think we should move ahead 
by waiving the Helms-Biden compromise. That compromise lays out the 
plan for strong bipartisan support for the U.N. in years to come. 
Without it, we will roll back the clock to the bad old days of the U.N.
  The reforms in the Helms-Biden compromise reform plan make sense. 
They require U.N. actions in our Nation to be subordinate to the U.S. 
Constitution; they deny the authority of the U.N. to levy taxes against 
our Nation or to keep standing armies; they require inspectors general, 
budget discipline and access by our own General Accounting Office; and 
they cut our share of the budget from amounts over 30 percent to 25 
percent and below.
  These reforms make sense and should not be overturned. I ask the 
House to defeat this amendment to keep the U.N. reform process on 
track.
  I would also respond to concerns about the linkage between the 
payment of U.N. arrears and the Mexico City family planning policy. I 
supported the Campbell-Gilman amendment to fund the UNFPA, without the 
gentleman from Ohio's vote, and we won that historic victory. It is 
clear after that vote that Congress will provide a U.S. contribution to 
the UNFPA.
  I also backed the Greenwood-Gilman compromise amendment on the Mexico 
City policy, also without the support of the gentleman from Ohio. That 
amendment prevailed in another historic vote that showed we did not 
have to have the Mexico City policy attached to foreign policy bills in 
the House.
  It is ironic that the gentleman from Ohio fought family planning 
advocates on those two amendments, and now seeks to override the entire 
U.N. reform process.
  I strongly support family planning and U.N. reform, and I urge defeat 
of the amendment.
  In response to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I would like to note 
that we are committed to paying our U.N. dues, but the Hall amendment 
guts the requirement for the authorization bill written by our 
Committee on International Relations and passed by this House 2 weeks 
ago. The Senate bill, S. 886, has 18 major U.N. reforms that would not 
be needed by deleting our authorization requirement. The Senate's 
authorization bill, which includes the Helms-Biden reforms, does not 
become must-pass legislation. Without that, these reforms will die.

                              {time}  1500

  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose the Hall 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman understand that the 
Helms-Biden agreement includes 18 conditions for the payment of the 
arrearages to the U.N. were agreed to by President Clinton?
  Mr. GILMAN. Agreed to by the President and also by the entire Senate.
  Mr. ROGERS. Is it also the gentleman's understanding that this 
amendment would undo all of that agreement?
  Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman is precisely correct. That is what we are 
concerned about.
  Mr. ROGERS. Except for the two minor conditions in the bill that we 
had?
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for underscoring that. He is 
absolutely correct.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has become the deadbeat of the world 
in its failure to pay its U.N. dues and arrears. I rise in strong 
support of the Hall amendment, and would like the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall) to respond to the gentleman's presentation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  I just want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  The fact is that the reforms that are in the Committee on 
Appropriations before us are still in the bill. I do not touch those. I 
do release $244 million through this amendment without authorization. 
The money is already appropriated, so it is not an item that we have to 
offset.
  Secondly, I support the Helms-Biden amendments and the reforms they 
were trying to do. As a matter of fact, they are still in the 
legislation that is before us, not this legislation but legislation 
that passed in 1998 and 1999, because the Helms-Biden amendment and all 
the reforms are still in that money, which has not been released 
because it is subject to authorization.
  Herein lies the problem. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for 3 
years and have been patient to have a clean vote on U.N. arrears. I 
have been hearing the same rhetoric over and over again, that we are 
going to get a chance, that we are going to get a chance. It is always 
subject to the authorization.
  But the authorization bill never passes. What they do is they hold 
hostage this debt that we owe. I think it makes us look bad. Great 
nations pay their bills. We are not paying our bills on this. The 
reforms are still intact in this bill. The gentleman is wrong when he 
says that they are not. I strike the provision that says, pay the U.N. 
arrears; not the full amount, only a downpayment of about $244 million, 
which is 25 percent of what we owe.
  That is what this really is all about. This is the first time we have 
ever had a chance to vote on U.N. arrears and have a clean vote. What I 
have trouble with, and the reason why I have offered this amendment, is 
I have trouble with the fact that we have very good moral issues here 
on the floor. Paying U.N. arrears is a moral issue. We owe it, we 
should pay it.
  The issue of pro-life or pro-choice to me, I am a pro-life Member, 
that is a moral issue to me. But when we take an issue like this and we 
twist it for our reasons, for political reasons, in a way in which they 
should not be linked, I think it hurts the whole cause. I think it is 
not honoring.
  That is why I have waited, as a pro-life Member, for a chance to say, 
these two issues do not belong in the same bill. And in holding the 
U.N. hostage because of abortion policy, because of the Mexico City 
policy, that is what it is all about, Members want leverage. What I am 
trying to do is release money in the fairest way possible.
  We are trying to be honorable about this. I think the whole world is 
looking at us. I know the American people support this. There have been 
a number of polls, and 80 percent of the American

[[Page 20111]]

people, of the American voters, say, pay the dues. That is what this 
vote is all about, pay the dues.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hall 
amendment for the reasons he outlined. As the gentleman pointed out, it 
leaves alone the reforms in the bill. We all support the reforms of the 
United Nations. It would allow the U.S. to make a long overdue $244 
million downpayment on the $1 billion that we already owe.
  We should pay our dues, our arrears, because it is in America's 
national interest. If we do not pay our dues without restrictions, 
without conditions, without riders that are totally unrelated, we could 
lose our vote in the U.N. General Assembly.
  I am very, very privileged to have the U.N. in my district, a body 
that serves America's interests every single day. It serves to end 
conflicts by negotiating peace agreements. It serves to prevent nuclear 
proliferation. It serves to make our children around the world have 
immunizations against deadly diseases. It serves to alleviate hunger, 
which the gentleman has been a great leader on in this body by 
providing relief to some of the world's most desperate areas.
  It is just plain good policy to pay what we owe, to strengthen our 
voice in this important body. And we should not link our dues, our 
arrears, to foreign policy riders that have absolutely nothing to do 
with the issue that is before us.
  I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I do, indeed, have the 
greatest respect for the sponsor of this amendment. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall) is a Member of this body who is admired by all of us 
for his deep convictions and constant and consistent work on behalf of 
the human rights of all people.
  Not only do we respect him for his professional and humane commitment 
to these matters, but most of us, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, 
most of us see the gentleman as a good personal friend. It strikes me 
as one of the really unusual moments here to see the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in such a 
heartfelt debate on this issue on different sides when one recognizes 
the acute friendship they have for one another. But that is the way of 
a legislative body.
  Mr. Chairman, on the issue of the United Nations arrears, there are a 
range of views. We hear them expressed here. At one end there are many 
people who believe we do not owe any back dues to the U.N. The notion 
that we do in many people's judgment is based on bad accounting and bad 
policy.
  There are other people in the middle of this spectrum, people like 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), like the colorful gentleman, 
Mr. Helms from North Carolina, like the equally colorful Mr. Biden, and 
even the President of the United States, as represented by his own 
Secretary of State, who agree that we should provide some additional 
funds to the U.N., but only in return for commonsense reforms; and I 
mean basic reforms, such that the U.N. should use Inspectors General, 
adopt budget discipline, and reduce the American share of its budget to 
reflect our share of the world economy.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, on the other extreme, is this amendment before us 
today. This amendment expresses the unique proposition that we should 
give $244 million of our taxpayers' money to the United Nations without 
insisting on our reform package. That is $244 million given with no 
authorization strings attached to the most bloated and wasteful 
bureaucracy since Byzantium.
  This would be wrong. Even the best friends of the United Nations, and 
I would count the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) among them, 
should oppose this amendment because it denies the Congress of the 
United States, in conjunction with the presidency, the ability to 
reform our relationship with the U.N. and make it better and a stronger 
institution.
  There has been some talk about linkages here. We all understand that 
it is a simple fact that the administration would have a better time 
getting its request for U.N. funding if it would deal with a variety of 
other issues.
  But let me tell the Members about the linkages issues that we refer 
to here. I saw an effort last year in the authorization bill agreed 
upon now by the House and Senate to put some of those linkages in that 
authorization language, and I saw the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate, Mr. Helms, who agreed with the linkages that we refer to, keep 
them out. Not in this bill, he said. We have worked hard on this bill. 
We have worked with the House and we have worked in good faith with the 
administration. I saw Mr. Helms say, no, we will not put these kinds of 
linkages in our bill because we are working with the administration.
  He honored that relationship, to protect the hard-won gains that they 
had done between the House and Senate authorizing committees and their 
relationship with the administration; I thought a deeply honorable 
thing, albeit for me at the moment, an inconvenient position for the 
distinguished chairman to take; a position, by the way, that I had 
rather assertively been reminded of by our own distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Now we have this same hardline work, all of these reforms so 
painstakingly negotiated between the Congress, the House, the other 
body, the White House, and the Secretary of State threatened again, 
threatened again, not this time by the effort to impose linkages into 
them, but this time by the idea, let us throw them overboard, forget 
all that work. Let us just give them the money, no strings attached. 
Forget all that hard work.
  I am sure, Mr. Chairman, I am sure after the frankly heroic effort by 
the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
and the distinguished efforts of the gentleman from the other body, Mr. 
Helms, to keep those linkages out of the commitment as a matter of 
cordiality with the administration, just a year ago, I am certain, Mr. 
Chairman, that they would expect that the administration, the Secretary 
of State, would protect that work, too, by opposing this effort we have 
on the floor today to throw it over.
  That is the story of linkages. Honor is as honor does. Honor should 
beget honor. The House and Senate chairman honored their working 
relationship with the administration. They have every right to expect 
the administration, and I am sure the administration does, to protect 
that work and oppose this amendment. If they do not, what a shame that 
there is not such respect for these two chairmen, for their honorable 
efforts.
  What I am suggesting that we do is continue to honor the hard work of 
our committees, as this Committee on Appropriations has done, and say, 
as the bill does, the $244 billion is available subject to 
authorization. Let us enact those very necessary reforms agreed on by 
Republican and Democrat leaders alike in the House, in the Senate, in 
the administration, and then we will, of course, couple, again, the 
money and the agreement and the reforms, and do this properly.
  Mr. Chairman, I just regret the impatience of the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall). I understand his commitments. I understand his devotion. I 
understand his sense of urgency to make things right. He does that in 
many ways, and many times we respect and appreciate that.
  But not this time, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is ill-advised. I think it reflects a 
lack of appreciation for the hard work, the commitment, the reform 
needed for the security of this Nation within a more secure and 
effective United Nations, and that work should be honored.
  I would hope this House would honor our committees, honor the effort 
made by the administration, oppose this amendment, and carry forward 
those reforms that would reflect the will of

[[Page 20112]]

the American people to have an American association with the United 
Nations that is honorable and respectful on both sides.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the most powerful Nation on Earth. There has 
never been a time in the history of man when there has been one country 
that has singularly had the power to influence the globe that the 
United States does today. There is no country in second place.
  This Congress, if it continues to play these games with a number of 
international organizations, we may squander this position of power and 
hurt future generations.
  The argument that process is more important than substance today is a 
little hard to take. I am the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
International Relations. With a little luck and hard work and the sense 
of the American people, hopefully I will be the next chairman of that 
committee.
  But let me tell the Members something, we have to get the work done. 
It is a little hard to take as sincere the statement that this is on 
the level, because it sounds a lot like the number one deadbeat dad in 
the country telling the kids that the check is in the mail. We have 
been doing this for a decade. We tie it up over abortion and Mexico 
City, we tie it up with territorial battles in the Congress between 
authorizers and appropriators.
  Some people hate international organizations. I look at the U.N. and 
understand that it carries out America's interests, fighting disease, 
fighting poverty, trying to stop wars. I am not afraid of the United 
Nations, and I think most of the American people in every poll, in 
every view, understand it is vital to our interests to be engaged.

                              {time}  1515

  My colleagues want to set standards for how it behaves, but they do 
not want to pay the bill. They keep tying it up in knots time and time 
again. The deadbeat dad that, for a decade, has been behind on payments 
says, yes, the check will be in the mail, but you have got to take care 
of Mexico City. The check will be in the mail, but we have got to get 
it through the right process in the House. We do not want to offend the 
House Committee on International Relations. The check is in the mail, 
but we have all these behavioral modifications we want to see.
  We are not going to get the reforms that we want if we do not pay our 
fair share. We are not going to get the reduction in the rate that we 
are supposed to pay if we do not pay up. The longer we take to complete 
this process, the more it is going to cost the American taxpayer.
  I close with what I started with. Today, unlike any time in the 
history of the world, this country, the United States of America, is 
the most powerful Nation on earth in a manner unequal in history, not 
the Romans, not the Greeks. No Nation on Earth has this kind of power, 
this kind of wealth, this kind of influence on every corner of the 
globe.
  We in this Congress, if we continue to be irresponsible in how we 
fulfill our obligations, we will squander that leadership and come back 
here a decade from now seeing conflict arise again, losing our voice in 
the United Nations, losing our ability to influence the future of this 
planet for better.
  Our children are better situated today than any children in the 
history of the world. Let us not squander that leadership.
  Pay the bill, and we will be able to reform the U.N. and achieve the 
goals we seek in the world.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me make a quick observation on how we got here 
in terms of the so-called arrearages. If one looks at the aggregate, 
the $926 million, a portion of that had to do with legislative policy 
withholdings. For example, no funds for the implementation for the 
General Assembly resolution which equated racism equals Zionism; the 
Kassebaum-Solomon amendment, which withheld 20 percent of U.S. assessed 
dues to the U.N. and specialized agencies unless those agencies granted 
voting rights on budgetary matters proportionate to budget 
contributions by each country. These were important policies, there was 
nothing frivolous about withholding funds to encourage reform.
  In 1994, the House & Senate passed, and the President signed, 
legislation, best described as burden-sharing legislation that said the 
U.S. is going to reduce its assessed contribution for peacekeeping from 
31 percent down to 25. Since 1996, our contribution has dropped from 31 
down to 25. That is one reason why we have such an enormous so-called 
arrearage at the U.N.
  We lowered our subsidy in a way reminiscent of our efforts to get 
other NATO nations to share more of the defense burden in Western 
Europe. We took the bull by the horns and lowered US contributions to 
UN peacekeeping--assessed peacekeeping--down to 25 percent. This talk 
about the U.S. being a deadbeat is absurd. We pay more than our fair 
share.
  So I must register my very strong opposition to this amendment, 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my very good friend. Let 
me note that I would like nothing better but to put this dispute behind 
us. But passage of this amendment today would likely make it harder, 
not easier, to resolve the dispute over U.N. arrearages and especially 
to get real and meaningful U.N. reform. The Amendment also seeks to 
delink the connection between the Mexico City policy and arrears. That 
would be wrong.
  We have passed reform legislation in the past. With arguable results. 
Reform has been spotty at best. So to maximize our reform efforts the 
appropriations bill before us would effectively advance U.N. reform by 
making any payment of the disputed arrearages expressly conditional on 
passage of a separate authorization bill.
  The Hall amendment would delete this important requirement so that 
the U.N. would get its money without real reform. Yes, the underlying 
language in the bill would require reduction of dues, to 22 percent.
  But most importantly, it says nothing about reducing our share of 
peacekeeping assessments from 31 to 25 percent. However, the U.S. 
government has already enacted this reduction--so arrearages may 
continue to expand unless the U.N. reduces our 25 percent ceiling.
  The Hall amendment says nothing about U.N. inspectors general or 
about corruption, about nepotism, overspending, U.N. taxation, 
infringements on United States sovereignty, or other issues addressed 
by the U.N. reform package.
  Mr. Chairman, by providing over $244 million to the U.N. without the 
careful process of deliberation and negotiation that is necessary for a 
true dispute resolution, we would seriously undermine and likely defeat 
the prospects for real reform. We would enable and empower continued 
bad behavior on the part of the U.N. officials and specialized 
agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to respond to this spurious accusation 
that the United States has been a deadbeat in its financial support of 
the United Nations. Rhetoric like that is particularly embarrassing 
when it comes from the mouths of the U.S. officials whose job it is to 
defend our interests, and it does violence to the facts about the 
relationship between the United States and the U.N.
  It would be far more accurate to say that the United States is by far 
the U.N.'s largest benefactor. Not deadbeat, benefactor--with a capital 
B.
  Consider this in the first 51 years of the U.N.'s existence, the 
United States paid approximately $35 billion into the U.N. system and 
somewhere between $6 and $15 billion additional dollars for costs for 
U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions. That amount dwarfs the 
contributions of all other countries in the world.
  In fiscal year 1997, for example, the U.S. paid roughly three times 
more into the U.N. system than Germany. The U.K. donates Five percent, 
that is all. We are 25 percent dues to 31 percent peacekeeping. We give 
five times more than France, 35 times more than

[[Page 20113]]

the People's Republic of China. They are under 1 percent. Time for some 
burden sharings adjustments it would seem to me.
  Last year, Uncle Sam provided $1.5 billion to the U.N., and $300 
million of that was voluntary not assessed. And we get no credit for 
that. In most cases we are glad to give it, to advance humanitarian 
goals that feed, clothe and vaccinate children.
  Still Mr. Chairman, many Americans and their representatives are 
deeply skeptical of some of the U.N's work. Some, seeing the waste and 
the fraud and the abuse that is rampant, some feel that drastic cuts in 
the U.N. funding are in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Smith was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, some believe that the U.N. 
owes the U.S. for billions of dollars we spent in support of U.N. 
authorized peacekeeping missions that have been paid by our government, 
an amount many times larger than the amount that the U.N. claims that 
we owe.
  As a matter of fact, a 1996 GAO report looked at just a few 
peacekeeping missions, Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and 
Rwanda, and found that, in just 4 years, from 1992 to 1995, the U.S. 
Government shelled out $6.6 billion. None of that $6.6 billion or any 
of the other money that has gone for the so-called incremental military 
costs are reflected anywhere in the computation about what we have 
donated to the U.N. and has nothing to do with the U.N. arrears debate. 
We get no credit for it.
  If we had all U.S. donations on the table, with absolute 
transparency, the aggregate of funds that American taxpayers give would 
make this arrearage fight look frivolous.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that some top U.N. officials, got 
their jobs, not because of their qualifications, but as a form of 
patronage for member states. That needs reform.
  There is no effective inspectors general for the various specialized 
agencies against waste, fraud, and unethical conduct, no effective 
protection for whistleblowers, no effective system of personnel 
evaluation.
  The U.N. continues to have major difficulties controlling their own 
spending. When actual spending exceeds the budget adopted by the 
General Assembly, nothing happens. It just exceeds the amount.
  The U.N. procurement system is almost as scandalous as the personnel 
and budget systems. There are no requirements of public announcements, 
and contracts are awarded under dubious and questionable criteria.
  All these defects, Mr. Chairman, need to be fixed, and they need to 
be fixed now. Last year, we made a sincere effort. The foreign 
relations authorization bill passed by the House and Senate required 
the U.S. share of dues to be reduced to 20 percent and, importantly, 
required before we provided this money that it drop from 31 to 25 
percent for assessed peacekeeping. Of course this change at the U.N. 
would comport with U.S. law. Again, remember, we passed the law; it is 
part of the U.S. Code, that we are not going to pay more than 25.
  Among other important reforms, the authorization bill we passed last 
Congress also contained tough conditions against U.N. attempts to 
violate U.S. sovereignty, to perhaps raise a standing army, or impose a 
U.N. tax. All of that is ``waived'' in the language that Mr. Hall 
offers today.
  Vote ``no'' on the Hall amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall amendment. I come 
from the old school. I believe that if one wants to do something, one 
finds a way to do it. If one really does not want to do it, one makes 
excuses as to why it cannot be done.
  We have in this Congress, for the past several years, nitpicked to 
death our arrearage question involving the United States' dues that are 
owed to the United Nations. I am embarrassed and ashamed that the 
United States has not paid its dues, and I am embarrassed and ashamed 
that we use every other issue as a rationale as to why somehow or other 
the United States cannot pay its dues.
  Everyone here says, oh, yes, we think that the United States will pay 
its dues and can pay its dues, and we are still in negotiation and 
still doing this and we are still doing that. But here we are year 
after year after year after year, and nothing changes.
  We have the United Nations working group here, co-chaired by myself 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). We did 
not think that month after month, year after year, we would still be 
fighting for the same thing. So a time has really come for us to put up 
or shut up.
  The United Nations arrearages should not be mixed in with abortion 
language or Mexico City or any other issue or any of the reforms or any 
of the things, the negotiations between the Senate and the House. We 
owe that money, and that money ought to be paid. It is an embarrassment 
that it is not paid.
  Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from two-thirds to three-
quarters of the American people support our paying the dues which we 
owe. Do my colleagues know that every former Secretary of State that is 
living, Republican and Democratic serving in Republican and Democratic 
administrations, supports the paying of the U.N. dues? Every one, 
Republican and Democratic, supports it.
  Now, the U.N. has undergone reforms. It needs more reforms. But let 
us not pretend they have not tried and made great strides in reforming 
themselves over the past years.
  The U.N. has an inspector general. They have reduced their 
peacekeeping costs substantially. These are all things that we have 
demanded they do. They have responded. They have had a zero growth now 
for 6 years. There are 900 positions cut in the United Nations. So they 
are responding to what we are saying. They ought to respond more.
  But as was pointed out by several of my colleagues, will they respond 
more if we pay our dues, or will they respond more if we do not pay our 
dues? If we do not pay our dues and we have this arrogant attitude and 
we are thumbing our nose at the world body, well, why should they 
respond to our demands for reform?
  But if we are paying what we owe, then we have a right to be 
influential, and we have a right to say what we feel, and then there 
will be a response; and there has been a response.
  But it seems to me that we cannot talk out of both sides of our 
mouth. What really upsets me and has not come out in this debate is 
that there is sort of an underlying feeling amongst many colleagues 
here, particularly on the other side of the aisle, underlying feelings 
of hostility towards the United Nations, that somehow the United 
Nations is there to tell us what to do or to dominate us or not act in 
the interest of the United States.

                              {time}  1530

  I think it is quite the opposite. I think the United Nations does 
work in the interest of the United States and in the interest of peace 
throughout the world.
  We have seen in crisis after crisis, in incidents such as in Kosovo 
and in Iraq and all over the world that we can utilize the United 
Nations to back up United States policy. But are we again in a better 
position to do that if we do not pay our dues or are we in a better 
position to have the United Nations back up U.S. foreign policy if we 
do pay our dues? I think it is quite evident that if we pay our dues we 
will have more influence in that body.
  So I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is trying to do, 
and he is showing the frustration that all of us feel, is that simply 
the United States ought to pay its dues and this Congress ought to have 
an up or down vote on the paying of the dues, not mixed into any other 
issue, not blown away because we are having a fight with the Senate or 
some people here do not like the administration or some people here 
feel strongly about other issues. We

[[Page 20114]]

owe the money, we ought to pay the money.
  The United Nations is an important organization, the United States is 
the leader of the world, and we ought to do what is right. And what is 
right is to pay our dues, and what is right is for this Congress to 
unequivocally say let us stop bashing the U.N., let us stop bashing 
other nations, let us act like leaders for a change. We are the 
leaders, we ought to be the leaders, and we ought to pay what we owe. 
Support the Hall amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio. It is pretty straightforward. I think we have 
heard all sides about the issue. What it simply does is it strikes some 
language that is in the bill which requires that funds that are 
appropriated for U.N. arrears must be authorized before they are 
disbursed.
  The bill's funding includes the third and the last installment on our 
arrears payments to the United Nations. However, the U.N. has been 
unable to receive any of the money which was previously appropriated 
because it was conditioned, as is the money in this bill, on the 
passage of an authorization bill which has not passed.
  The other body has crafted an agreement with the administration to 
deal with the question of U.N. reforms and has approved repayment of 
our arrears by a large margin. But the House has been unable to follow 
suit because passage of the U.N. authorization has been tied to 
unrelated issues. It is time that the question of U.N. funding be 
considered on its merits and not held hostage by other agendas.
  Release of these funds is particularly important because we are 
facing the possibility of losing our vote in the General Assembly. 
Every living former Secretary of State, including James Baker, 
Alexander Hague, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger all support repayment 
of our U.N. arrears.
  They support U.N. funding not only because it is a legal obligation 
but because it serves our national interest in contributing to global 
peace, prosperity, and security, and because it serves humanitarian 
interests in assisting refugees, improving human rights, and 
establishing the rule of law. Our continued failure to honor our 
obligation threatens our interests by threatening the U.N.'s financial 
and political viability.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the authorizing committee, 
very great respect, he is my friend, and I do want him to know that I 
do think that this amendment is appropriate and I urge support for the 
Hall amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  The United States needs to pay up. That is very basic. Crippling the 
U.N. by withholding U.S. economic support will not only hurt the 
reputation of the United States in the world community, but it will 
make it even more difficult for the U.N. to push forward with needed 
reforms.
  I say needed reforms because, as this debate has brought to the 
surface, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has said quite 
emphatically that certain reforms are very much in order, not just in 
the interest of the United States but in the interest of the long-term 
effectiveness of the United Nations.
  Personally, I do not think we hear enough about the U.N. successes: 
The feeding of over 50 million people last year, the immunization of 
hundreds of thousands of needy children, reducing the use of ozone 
depleting substances, and a whole list of very good deeds. Now, more 
than any other time in history, countries are connected through 
problems, since many problems today are global in scope. The U.N. has 
been the only body to convene all parties to broker agreements on these 
global issues.
  Now, the U.N. has not always succeeded, but its successes have been 
many, and it has always tried. Issues such as armed conflict 
resolution, nuclear site inspections, cross-border pollution, crime, 
drugs, armed trafficking, money laundering, and epidemics, all of which 
are beyond the capability of any one country or group of countries have 
been addressed. So much better to be debating these issues in an 
international forum rather than fighting about them on some distant 
battlefield.
  Mr. Chairman, a strong majority of Americans favor us paying our U.N. 
dues. They understand that if we belong to an organization and that 
organization has dues, the obligation is to pay those dues. That is 
basic. We should heed their wisdom and pass the Hall amendment. The 
world counts on the U.N., it is time that the U.N. can count on the 
U.S.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a representative from California, specifically San 
Francisco, where the U.N. was born, I rise with particular pride today 
in support of the Hall amendment. In our community, we have a great 
appreciation for the United Nations and the work that it does. So I 
rise today to say let us pay our dues to the U.N.; and, in addition to 
that, let us give the U.N. its due.
  It is a great institution. It is capable of helping to solve many 
problems in the world on a multilateral basis. We have urged the U.N. 
to put a new leader in and, with U.S. support, that happened; and we 
still turn our back.
  I am pleased as a representative of San Francisco to join my 
colleagues from New York, where the U.N. is domiciled, in praise of the 
United Nations and its work. And I am very, very pleased to salute the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his courage and his leadership in 
bringing this amendment to the floor.
  Everyone is making a little sacrifice on this issue so that we can 
have a big payoff for poor people in the world, for protecting the 
environment, for promoting the rule of law and human rights and peace 
throughout the world.
  This debate, to me, seems full of contradictions. On the one hand we 
are told by our colleagues who oppose the U.N. that their objection to 
U.N. funding was based on concerns about inefficiencies and bureaucracy 
at the U.N. Those issues have been addressed. Certainly more needs to 
be done, but we are in the process of improving that. The U.N. has 
already implemented significant reforms, and the Hall amendment 
preserves the package of U.N. reforms in the State Department 
authorization bill.
  Another contradiction we hear here is that we need to have more say 
at the U.N. But by not paying our dues, we will lose our vote in the 
General Assembly. I cannot believe that this body, this House of 
Representatives, would even consider allowing such a step to occur. 
But, unfortunately, we have done that repeatedly in the past, and there 
is a real possibility that we will vote that way again this year and 
lose the vote. Passage of the Hall amendment is a step toward ensuring 
that Congress takes the right path this year, the path to paying our 
U.N. arrears.
  Now, another contradiction I hear, the distinguished majority leader 
came to the floor and over and over and over again he said that we must 
respect the sanctity, or whatever the word he used, of the authorizing 
committee, or of the committee process. I think that is an excellent 
idea, and I think that we should start to do it soon, but we must be 
consistent.
  If that was the gentleman's view, I wish he would have stood with us 
on this floor last week when we did not want the Smith amendment, an 
authorizing measure, made in order on an appropriations bill to stop 
the U.N. population funds from going forth without the gag rule. So let 
us be consistent or else let us not sing as a mantra that we must 
protect the committee system if we are doing it very selectively.
  Another contradiction is that the U.S. must not be the policemen of 
the world, and we must not bear all the burden of peacekeeping and 
resolving conflict in the world. And yet we are ready to turn our backs 
here today,

[[Page 20115]]

hopefully not, on the institution of multilateralism, the most 
significant instrument that we have at our disposal to solve the 
world's problems in a multilateral way, and that means with financial 
resources, intellectual resources, energy, idealism and the rest.
  It was reported that today our ambassador will be sworn in, will be 
confirmed on the Senate side, Richard Holbrooke. I do not know if I am 
allowed to say that, Mr. Chairman. When he is confirmed, and our 
ambassador goes to the U.N., a position of high honor in our country, 
the ambassador to the U.N., when he goes there, we want him to be able 
to serve effectively. We want him to be able to hold his head up high, 
that we have paid our dues and given our due respect to the United 
Nations for what it does.
  So that is why I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), because 
I know it is with considerable sacrifice and compromise that he puts 
this amendment forward. Everyone is making a little sacrifice. I hope 
we all can so that we can pass the Hall amendment and hold our heads up 
high at the U.N.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Hall). This amendment would 
allow the United States to make good on its commitment and pay $244 
million in arrearages to the U.N. Unfortunately, it does so while 
dismissing the work of a bi-partisan, bi-cameral coalition which has 
worked together with the Administration, as well as the Secretary of 
State, to achieve broad agreement as to the reforms that need to be 
made in the U.N. so that the U.S. and its citizens can continue to work 
with the U.N. in good faith.
  The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State, under 
the leadership of Chairman Rogers, has brought forth a bill that 
includes two very responsible reforms dealing with the U.N. budget. 
Additionally, the Subcommittee in their wisdom, also made the payment 
of the $244 million in arrears, contingent upon authorization language 
by the House Committee on International Relations. Currently, the House 
is in Conference with the Other Body to reconcile the differences 
between the two authorization vehicles. It is important that the 
Conferees are able to continue their bi-partisan, bi-cameral workings 
on this legislation. It is expected that this Conference will be 
addressing the need for U.N. reforms, as well as the need to pay our 
arrearages.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prematurely seeks to address the concern 
that the arrearages will not be authorized. The Other Body has worked 
with the Administration and the Executive Agencies to ensure that all 
parties are in agreement about the conditions to which we appropriate 
these monies for the U.N. I will vote against this amendment to 
preserve the agreement made by these groups. I firmly believe that we 
must live up to our obligations and pay our U.N. debts, but I want to 
be clear. I believe the best way to do this is to allow the Conferees 
to complete their consideration of these measures and not legislate 
this matter on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 221, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  1603

  Messrs. GILCHREST, COBURN, LaTOURETTE, DAVIS of Illinois, and

[[Page 20116]]

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


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       On page 72, line 5, strike ``$2,482,825,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,482,325,000''.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there are times when Congress must act to 
protect the interest of individuals, in particular Federal civil 
servants, who have been unfairly harmed by the actions of the Federal 
Government. In this instance, the Federal employee is Linda Shenwick.
  I had intended to offer an amendment that would have presented the 
expenditure of the Secretary of State's entertainment account until 
Linda Shenwick was reinstated, reimbursed and had her personnel files 
expunged of negative information and evaluations.
  Unfortunately, this was difficult under existing House rules for 
appropriations bills. Therefore, I have drafted an amendment that will 
reduce the general administration expenses for the Department of State 
by an amount equal to $5 million in order to send a message that this 
body objects to the treatment of an innocent Federal civil servant.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment after engaging 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky for agreeing to 
work with us to attempt to defend Linda Shenwick and attempt to have 
her reinstated. In addition, I would like to encourage the gentleman 
from Indiana, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, to 
conduct a hearing on how this Federal whistle-blower, Linda Shenwick, 
has been illegally removed from her position, and to create a solution 
to have her reinstated, reimbursed for her personal expenses, and have 
her personnel records expunged of negative information.
  In the performance of her duties, she came across time and time again 
evidence of deliberate waste, fraud and abuse in the United Nations. 
When she began reporting such evidence to her superiors at the start of 
the Clinton administration, her reports were ignored.
  So how has the Clinton administration and the State Department 
rewarded this stellar career employee? They actually began to hurt her 
career by threatening her directly with removal from her position, with 
threats to destroy her financially, and by beginning a process of false 
accusations and unsatisfactory reviews to harm her personnel files.
  She has been unfairly and illegally removed from her Federal position 
in contradiction to Federal laws to protect civil servants and in 
contradiction to Federal laws to protect whistle-blowers.
  It behooves us to concern ourselves with this case and Congress to 
act now to protect the interests of an exemplary public servant.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Let me just say that we have had a number of hearings involving those 
who are whistle-blowers for various agencies of government. The problem 
that the gentleman from Florida is talking about is not unique. We had 
three people before our committee just recently who wanted to testify 
about reprisals against them because they were telling Congress about 
waste, fraud, abuse or mistakes made in their agencies and they were 
threatened with their jobs. Many of them were penalized.
  Ms. Shenwick is another example of people being taken to the cross, 
so to speak, and nailed to it because they are telling Congress about 
waste, fraud and abuse.
  One of the biggest debates we have on this floor is the United 
Nations. We just had one. For us to chastise somebody who is contacting 
the Congress about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' money over 
there borders on the criminal as far as I am concerned. Madeleine 
Albright and the State Department should be made aware that we are not 
going to stand still in this Congress and let people be penalized who 
are telling Congress about this kind of waste, fraud and abuse. Ms. 
Shenwick should be vindicated. That is why we are both talking to the 
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Kentucky, to see if something cannot be done.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this case to the 
attention of the body. I agree with the gentleman that whistle-blowers 
play a vital role in identifying and eradicating waste, fraud and abuse 
in government. Also, I agree that such individuals should be protected 
from reprisals and that we have a responsibility to support them in 
that respect.
  I want to assure the gentleman that we will take a close look at this 
particular case, and if it is determined that this person has suffered 
reprisals as a result of making the Congress aware of waste, fraud and 
abuse at the U.N., we will take appropriate action in conference.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I understand what the three gentlemen who spoke are trying to 
accomplish, but I just want to say that this is a very serious 
situation. We spoke about it yesterday. We should speak about it again. 
First of all, this whole discussion we were having today is really 
unnecessary because there is at this point the office of special 
counsel which has been taking evidence from both sides and interviewing 
witnesses and expects to issue a decision in the near future.
  Now, what troubles me about the conversation I just heard and what we 
heard yesterday, while I am pleased that the gentleman has withdrawn 
the amendment, I am troubled by the fact that we continue to try to 
subvert the actions of the special counsel. We should allow those 
people that we set in law to do the work that they have to do and we 
should not try to undo that work.
  I would hope that the comments that were made yesterday by myself 
were taken fully for what they meant, and, that is, that I would hope 
the gentleman would just allow for the process to take its place.

                              {time}  1615

  First of all, this young lady has not been determined a whistle-
blower yet; that is part of the investigation. So why we are saying 
what we are saying I do not understand. And lastly, not to take too 
much time, I will be the first one to join if I know there has been 
discrimination or unfairness in any way, shape, or form. But we need 
for this process to take its due course.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman means that sincerely, 
and I respect him, but this woman was removed before the investigation 
was complete. Generally the woman is kept in office, the whistle-
blower, while the investigation proceeds, but the investigation started 
and then removed her, and they have not even completed the 
investigation.
  So I submit that that is not the kind of behavior that I am sure that 
the gentleman from New York condones.
  Mr. SERRANO. I understand, and it is certainly not the kind of 
behavior

[[Page 20117]]

that I would condone; and if that is the case, it is part of what we 
have to look at. That is why I respect the gentleman and I thank him 
for withdrawing the amendment, but I just want us to make sure that 
this is an issue that has other people involved and other situations 
going on, and we should pay attention to that as we pay attention to 
our intent here.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my very deep disappointment that 
there is no funding for the East-West Center in this appropriations 
bill. As my colleagues know, several days ago the House debated this 
matter about funding the East-West Center as well as the North-South 
Center and the Asia Foundation, and by an overwhelming vote the 
provisions for funding in the authorization bill were retained, and in 
the case of the East-West Center, it was funded at $17.5 million.
  The East-West Center is an internationally respected research and 
educational institution that was based in Hawaii 39 years ago. It was a 
bipartisan effort by the Eisenhower administration, the Congress, and 
the center has worked very successfully to improve relations and 
understanding between the United States and the peoples of Asia and the 
Pacific region. Presidents from these nations, prime ministers, 
ambassadors, scholars, people that are in business, in journalism, have 
traveled from all over the Pacific region to come to study at the East-
West Center.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not something which we have any proprietary 
interest as the State of Hawaii. It is a national institution, and it 
serves more than half of the world's population and has provided some 
tremendous input to the scholars that come, to those who study, as well 
as to the country as a whole.
  We have very, very important programs ongoing, and to each year face 
this situation of no support from the Committee on Appropriations is 
very, very disturbing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). 
My colleague and I have worked very hard to try to bring to the 
awareness of the Members of this House how important this institution 
is.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I see the distinguished members of the 
Committee on International Relations are here, others who are 
associated with this bill. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear a 
personal note, if I might, to the other Members.
  The East-West Center is a Federally chartered institution. It is not 
an entity which the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) or myself are 
associated with as Members of Congress per se. It is not an institution 
of the University of Hawaii or the State of Hawaii.
  I was there when it was founded 39 years ago when I was a student at 
the University of Hawaii. I am well acquainted with many of the alumni, 
Mr. Chairman, some 40,000 plus.
  We just finished today the conference report on the Committee on 
Armed Services. We have to fund our Armed Services because of our 
relationships to be prepared to defend the strategic interests of the 
United States and the Pacific Rim to the tune of billions and billions 
of dollars. We have 40,000 friends in Asia as a result of their 
experience at the East-West Center, which happens to be in Hawaii, 
which is the gateway for the United States of America and to all of 
Asia and South Asia and the Pacific Rim.
  I urge the Chair, and I urge the committee members who will be 
conference members as they deal with the Senate, to have an open mind 
based on the facts as I have outlined them and the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has outlined them and based on the fact that the 
East-West Center is very much in the strategic interests of the United 
States as a Federally chartered institution and as a catalyst for 
friendship throughout all of Asia for the United States of America.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the most powerful force of the 
United States in the Pacific region has always been our ideas, and the 
East-West Center is a place where these ideas can be shared by the 
people who will be the future leaders of the Asian Pacific country, and 
therefore it seems to me that it is so obvious that the national 
interest is centered in the maintenance and in the increasing of the 
possibility of the East-West Center to extend its influence over the 
Asia Pacific area.
  So each year when we confront this negative funding from this body, 
it is very discouraging, and I know that we do rely upon gifts from the 
Asian Pacific countries and from individual companies, but in every 
case they set the parameters of how this money is to be spent. We want 
to give the East-West Center a strong foundation, a strong basis on 
which our points of view, our ideas, our philosophy, our political 
approach, our understanding of democracy can be the center for our 
existence as an institution; and therefore I would hope that the 
members of this committee will take that outlook as they meet with the 
Senate on this matter.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we vote today for or against the appropriation that 
will pay for the State Department's operating expenses, I would like to 
draw the attention of my colleagues to an ongoing controversy 
concerning the State Department's dealings with the Taliban regime that 
now controls Afghanistan. The Taliban, I remind my colleagues, have 
been ruling most of Afghanistan with an iron fist. They are competing 
with the SLORC dictatorship in Burma for the role of the world's 
largest producer of heroin. They are harboring anti-American terrorists 
like Osama bin Laden and other murderers who have killed and maimed 
Americans in attacks like those on American embassies in Africa.
  The Taliban fanatical leaders are waging a psychotic war of terror 
and repression against anything that they deem Western and have singled 
out women in Afghanistan as the targets of their medieval wrath. In 
short, they are to women what the Nazis were to Jews in the 1930's. 
Specifically, they are a monstrous threat to the freedom and well-being 
of tens of millions of women who live in Muslim countries around the 
world.
  Now here is the kicker. Under the Clinton administration, the Taliban 
has established control over most of Afghanistan and has wiped out its 
opposition. Rather than being a force to combat the expansion of the 
Taliban, it appears that the United States under this administration 
has acquiesced to Taliban rule and even undermined the resistance to 
the Taliban. In short, it appears that the United States may have a 
covert policy of supporting the Taliban.
  As a senior member of the Committee on International Relations, I 
requested documents well over a year ago that would confirm or lay to 
rest this suspicion about possible U.S. support for the Taliban. I 
repeatedly requested Assistant Secretary of State Rick Indefurth and 
other State Department officials formally and informally, officially 
and unofficially, to provide the documentation.
  The chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), joined me in this request. 
Secretary of State Albright made a commitment to the committee during a 
hearing that documents would be forthcoming, and that was November of 
last year. After over a year of stalling and foot dragging, a year of 
either cover-up or incompetence, the State Department finally turned 
over a small batch of documents a couple of weeks ago, and only, by the 
way only then, after the chairman, Chairman Gilman, threatened to 
subpoena.
  Mr. Chairman, the paltry packet delivered from the State Department 
contained for the most part photocopies of newspaper articles about 
Afghanistan. This arrogance should be noted as we vote for the State 
Department's budget. This thumbing their noses at Congressional 
oversight cannot and should not be tolerated. This is an issue of 
utmost importance, and at this point, Mr. Chairman, I insert into the 
Record a letter that I sent yesterday to Assistant Secretary of State 
Indefurth:

[[Page 20118]]

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1999.
     Hon. Karl F. Indefurth,
     Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, 
         Department of State, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Secretary Indefurth: After over a year of requesting 
     documents and information concerning the Administration's 
     policies and activities concerning Afghanistan and the 
     Taliban, your office transmitted an envelope with pitifully 
     few documents. Most of those documents were photocopies of 
     newspaper articles. You may think this is funny, Mr. 
     Indefurth. It is an insult to me as a senior member of the 
     International Relations committee, it is an insult to 
     Chairman Gilman who joined me in this request, and it is an 
     affront to the Congress. Your actions suggest a disdain for 
     Congress' oversight responsibility.
       Let me again remind you, I have asked for all documents 
     concerning administration policy toward Afghanistan and the 
     Taliban, including cables and diplomatic correspondence with 
     American diplomats engaged in foreign policy initiatives and 
     analysis. Chairman Gilman joined me in that request over six 
     months ago. In November of last year, Secretary Albright 
     promised the Committee that the requested documents would be 
     forthcoming. As far as I am concerned, you are in contempt of 
     Congress in both a legal and personal sense. There is no 
     excuse for the delays and stonewalling instead of providing 
     information requested by a legitimate Congressional oversight 
     committee.
       There are only a few explanations for your continued 
     intransigence in meeting this lawful request for documents 
     and information. All of those explanations reflect poorly on 
     you, Secretary Albright and the Administration as a whole. 
     Incompetence may be a reason, raw arrogance may be a reason. 
     However, it is also possible, considering other actions taken 
     by you and the Administration, that what we see is a 
     reflection of a coverup of a covert policy supporting the 
     Taliban in Afghanistan.
       Considering the Taliban's assault on human rights, 
     especially those of Afghan women, the charges of a convert 
     policy of support for the Taliban deserved the utmost 
     clarification by your office through the documents I 
     requested. Instead, we've had delay and obfuscation. 
     Taliban's current offensive aimed at destroying the last 
     remnants of resistance to their tyrannical rule, makes your 
     actions even more questionable. This letter will be sent to 
     every member of the International Relations Committee and 
     will be made part of the Congressional Record. Upon return 
     from the Summer break, I will be asking that subpoenas be 
     issued and that prosecution for contempt of Congress be 
     considered.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dana Rohrabacher,
                                               Member of Congress.

  At this moment the Taliban are on an offensive that it is attempting 
to wipe out its last resistance, and that is about 10 percent of the 
country that now is in the Panjer Valley and that has resisted the 
Taliban efforts, and that is under a man named Commander Massoud. This 
is a life and death struggle. Thousands of people are being killed. 
Unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan who fought so bravely as 
friends of the United States and helped us end the Cold War, we now 
have deserted them; and it is possible that we are actually helping 
their oppressors.
  Unfortunately, it appears that the Saudis and the Pakistanis have 
sent foreign troops into Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the 
United States. I hope that the people of Afghanistan understand that as 
this offensive against Massoud and the Panjer Valley goes forward this 
is their chance to rise up against the Taliban and to win their own 
freedom, because I am afraid that as long as this administration is in 
Washington, D.C., that we will not be taking those efforts to support 
the freedom-loving people of Afghanistan who stood with us against the 
Soviet Union; and instead it is possible that we have a covert policy 
of supporting the Taliban control, which would be a monstrous violation 
of the principles of freedom and justice for all that our country 
supposedly stands for.
  So I would ask my colleagues to pay attention to this, and I would 
ask the State Department to please provide the documentation that I 
have been trying and I am asking for for over a year, when the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has been asking for it for over a 
year and not to arrogantly thumb their noses at us by sending us 
newspaper clippings in response to our request for official documents.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this section, the 
Clerk will read.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title IV 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title IV is as follows:

                       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, 
     $19,551,000.


                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $5,750,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 24(c) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)).


              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, $5,733,000, 
     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, $14,549,000: Provided, That the United States' share of 
     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 
     section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 24(c) of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2696(c)).

           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, 2000, 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, 2000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    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, $31,000,000 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 by the United States Information and 
     Education Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, the Radio 
     Broadcasting to Cuba Act, as amended, the Television 
     Broadcasting to Cuba Act, the United States International 
     Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, Reorganization Plan No. 
     2 of 1977 as amended, and the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998, 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, $410,404,000, of which not to exceed 
     $16,000

[[Page 20119]]

     may be used for official receptions within the United States 
     as authorized by section 804(3) of such Act of 1948 (22 
     U.S.C. 1747(3)), not to exceed $35,000 may be used for 
     representation abroad as authorized by section 302 of such 
     Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1452) and section 905 of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4085), 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 by 
     section 801 of the United States Information and Educational 
     Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1471), $11,258,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 704(a) of 
     such Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1477b(a)).

       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 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. The Secretary of State is authorized to 
     administer summer travel and work programs without regard to 
     preplacement requirements.
       Sec. 404. Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, 
     section 410(a) of the Department of State and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in Public Law 
     105-277, shall be in effect.
       Sec. 405. 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.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this title?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       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, $69,303,000.


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $5,400,000, 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 these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $1,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $3,725,000, 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.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
would engage me in a brief colloquy?
  I thank the gentleman for his indulgence. I want to thank him for his 
excellent work on the bill. I know he has had a difficult time and made 
some difficult choices, and I think he has produced a great product.
  I would like to ask him about funding for the National Veterans 
Business Development Corporation. The bill authorized in this program, 
H.R. 1568, passed the House by a voice vote, has not yet passed the 
Senate. We certainly expect it to soon. It was originally my intent to 
offer an amendment providing the $2 million necessary for the program, 
but that would have been subject to a point of order.
  It is my understanding the Senate will pass H.R. 1568 soon, perhaps 
yet this week, and that a bill can be sent to the White House.

                              {time}  1630

  I would like to ask the chairman if once we have an authorization, he 
would be willing to work with me and the Senate conferees to see if we 
can obtain funding for this important program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the corporation and the 
gentleman's efforts on the committee on small business to aid veterans 
through this program. However, because we were uncertain of the final 
form of the authorization, we did refrain from providing funding. It is 
my understanding that the bill is not being significantly changed. 
Therefore, I would be happy to work with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Small Business to see what might be accomplished in the 
conference.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
chairman for his time. I appreciate his offer to work with me on this, 
and, more importantly, I thank him on behalf of the veterans and the 
small business community who will be helped by the bill and the 
funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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 appropriation 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, $265,000, 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, $8,900,000: 
     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 4 full-time individuals under Schedule C of the 
     Excepted Service exclusive of 1 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 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, 
     $1,170,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                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-

[[Page 20120]]

     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; not to exceed $29,000,000 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; $279,000,000: 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. 5901-02; 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, $192,000,000, of which not to 
     exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2001, for research and policy studies: Provided, That 
     $185,754,000 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 2000 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 2000 appropriation 
     estimated at $6,246,000: Provided further, That any 
     offsetting collections received in excess of $185,754,000 in 
     fiscal year 2000 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 2000.

                      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 of 
     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. 5901-02, 
     $14,150,000: 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; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $77,207,000: 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 any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $77,207,000 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. 18(a)) 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 2000, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2000 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, $141,000,000, of which $134,575,000 is for basic 
     field programs and required independent audits; $1,125,000 is 
     for the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as 
     may be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; and $5,300,000 is for management and 
     administration.

          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 1999 and 2000, respectively.

                        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, 
     $1,240,000.

                   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, 
     $193,200,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 2000 to 
     remain available until expended, and from fees collected in 
     fiscal year 1998, $130,800,000, 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.

                     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, 
     $245,500,000: 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.), $10,800,000.


                     Business Loans Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $762,000, to be available 
     until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans, 
     $128,030,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which 
     $45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     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 2000, commitments to 
     guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed the 
     amount of financings authorized under section 20(e)(1)(B)(ii) 
     of the Small Business Act, as amended: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2000, 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 2000, commitments to guarantee loans under section 
     303(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as 
     amended, shall not exceed the amount of guarantees of 
     debentures authorized under section 20(e)(1)(C)(ii) of the 
     Small Business Act, as amended.
        In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $94,000,000, 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, $139,400,000 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 direct administrative expenses of loan 
     making and servicing to carry out the direct loan program, 
     $116,000,000, of which $500,000 is for the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Small Business Administration for 
     audits and reviews of disaster loans

[[Page 20121]]

     and the disaster loan program and shall be transferred to and 
     merged with appropriations for the Office of Inspector 
     General.

        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 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.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title IV 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this section?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      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 2000, 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 2000, 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 appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay for 
     any cost incurred for: (1) opening or operating any United 
     States diplomatic or consular post in the Socialist Republic 
     of Vietnam that was not operating on July 11, 1995; (2) 
     expanding any United States diplomatic or consular post in 
     the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was operating on July 
     11, 1995; or (3) increasing the total number of personnel 
     assigned to United States diplomatic or consular posts in the 
     Socialist Republic of Vietnam above the levels existing on 
     July 11, 1995; unless the President certifies within 60 days 
     the following:
       (A) Based upon all information available to the United 
     States Government, the Government of the Socialist Republic 
     of Vietnam is fully cooperating in good faith with the United 
     States in the following:
       (i) Resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings, and field 
     activities.
       (ii) Recovering and repatriating American remains.
       (iii) Accelerating efforts to provide documents that will 
     help lead to fullest possible accounting of prisoners of war 
     and missing in action.
       (iv) Providing further assistance in implementing 
     trilateral investigations with Laos.
       (B) The remains, artifacts, eyewitness accounts, archival 
     material, and other evidence associated with prisoners of war 
     and missing in action recovered from crash sites, military 
     actions, and other locations in Southeast Asia are being 
     thoroughly analyzed by the appropriate laboratories with the 
     intent of providing surviving relatives with scientifically 
     defensible, legal determinations of death or other 
     accountability that are fully documented and available in 
     unclassified and unredacted form to immediate family members.
       Sec. 610. 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. 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

[[Page 20122]]

     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. 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. 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); (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. 618. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts deposited in the Fund established under 42 U.S.C. 
     10601 in fiscal year 1999 in excess of $500,000,000 shall not 
     be available for obligation until October 1, 2000.
       Sec. 619. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to publish or issue an assessment required under 
     section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 
     unless--
       (1) the supporting research has been subjected to peer 
     review and, if not otherwise publicly available, posted 
     electronically for public comment prior to use in the 
     assessment; and
       (2) the draft assessment has been published in the Federal 
     Register for a 60 day public comment period.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 108, line 21, 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 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 620. 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 Offered By Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 108, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 
     109, line 8 (section 620).

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we are proposing an amendment which many of 
us believe will address an issue which we have too long ignored, and 
that is the issue of global climate change. Unfortunately, the language 
of the bill at this moment contains language which would prevent us 
from addressing this important issue on an international basis.
  The language specifically we are addressing is in section 620 of the 
bill, and, unfortunately, the existing language of the bill would 
prevent any expenditure of funds in preparation for implementation of 
the Kyoto Protocol regarding global climate change. The problem with 
this language is that it would prevent our diplomatic efforts to bring 
forth the developing world into our efforts to get a handle on global 
climate change.
  Many of us know that in the Kyoto Protocol, despite its adoption, we 
have a desire, and the administration has expressed a desire, to work 
with developing nations to get the developing nations to agree to 
limitations, to agree to research in new technology, to try to reduce 
our emissions globally, the developed world and the developing world, 
to reduce CO2 emissions and prevent the kind of summers we have had 
recently.
  We need to remove this language, because, unfortunately, the Nation 
is coming to feel like Time Magazine. If you see this week's Time 
magazine, there is an article that is entitled ``Capitol Hill 
Meltdown.'' The subtitle is, ``While the Nation sizzles, Congress 
fiddles over measures to slow down future climate change.''
  Now, there is lots of work to be done between here and now on the 
solution to this problem, but the one thing we should not do, the one 
thing we cannot do, is shoot ourselves in the foot in an effort to go 
forth and try to bring the developing nations into this international 
agreement, to try to get them to join us in the efforts to reduce 
climate change emissions.
  Many of us believe and all of us should believe that there should be 
no cardinal sin in going forth and trying to get others to talk with 
you internationally on how to deal with this problem. I would encourage 
any Member who has questions about this issue when we finish our 
mysteries at the beach this August to take a look at the literature on 
this issue because there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that 
this phenomena is occurring, number one, and, number two, it is going 
to continue to occur unless we, on an international basis, do something 
about it.
  So we are offering this amendment, which would allow us, 
internationally, to go to the developed nations and urge them to join 
us in efforts to reduce these emissions and to enter into international 
agreements.
  I want to make clear, this amendment does not, repeat, does not 
attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate has not ratified 
that, obviously. But it will allow us to continue diplomatic efforts to 
get the developed nations to help us and join us in this international 
effort to prevent the kind of summers we have had in the past year, in 
the past month, becoming unfortunately our predestined future.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong objection to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road many, many times, but I 
would just like to assert a little bit of the history behind why this 
language is in the bill. Incidentally, it is in a number of bills, and 
it was signed into law, I would point out, last year by the President.
  There is strong bipartisan support in this body and the other body 
for this language, and all it is designed to do and destined to do is 
to prevent implementation of the Kyoto treaty before it is ratified by 
the Senate. As the gentleman well knows, the Senate does have something 
to say about this.
  I could say to you that nowhere in our wording does it say that we 
are stopping voluntarily any efforts that are being made in the 
direction of improving conditions, as you seek. But the developing 
nations of this world, as has been determined by that Senate vote of 95 
to 0, must be participants. That does not mean that we have to pay with 
taxpayer dollars for implementation of the treaty until there is 
ratification.
  Now, I can say further, education and research is something that is 
very clear. That can be done. But I think

[[Page 20123]]

the gentleman errs when he says that this language prevents any kind of 
voluntary effort. What it is designed to do, and it says very clearly, 
and I can read it, if you would like, ``none of the funds appropriated 
by this act shall be used to propose, issue rules or regulations or 
decrees or orders for the purpose of implementation.''
  That is the story, plain and simple.
  I would tell the gentleman that it was not just a bipartisan effort, 
because if you look at the vote through the various subcommittees, 
committees, on the floor, et cetera, in the Senate, I think there is 
overwhelming respect for the idea that we should not bypass the 
Constitution, we should not implement before we ratify.
  I would just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that 
is what this language is for. If you strike this language, you have 
opened up enough room for a truck to drive through to actually 
implement the treaty. That is what we do not want to do.
  I want to get to a point where we have made this world a cleaner 
place in terms of the air we breathe I think as much as anybody, but we 
are not going to do it in a constitutional bypass, and that is, 
frankly, what you do when you strike this language, you leave it open 
to that.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for being the author of this language that was 
inserted into this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is I think the sixth of these appropriations bills 
that this exact same language has been included in. The House has 
passed five previous bills this year, appropriations bills, with this 
same language, and it is in this bill, and I commend the gentleman for 
his efforts, because he has been the driving force behind our efforts.
  This language was accepted I think unanimously in the full committee. 
I do not think anyone objected to it. I would certainly oppose the 
amendment to strike it out, and commend the gentleman for putting the 
language in. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, it is a question as much as a statement. 
What many of us are concerned about is the language that says none of 
the funds can be used in preparation for implementation.
  Let me tell you what the concern is, and perhaps we can work together 
in conference to resolve this. The concern is that that language would 
prevent the State Department from going to developed nations and trying 
to get them to prepare for the Kyoto Protocol, to try to get them to 
agree to improve their participation in this protocol, to try to get 
them to agree to some of the measures.
  We are very concerned this language will prevent us from moving ahead 
at all on international consideration. I guess I would ask the Chair if 
you would consider in conference looking at this language.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me assure the 
gentleman that there is nothing in this wording, which was worked out, 
by the way, in conference last year with the Senate and the House, with 
Senator Byrd. This language, by the way, was further, I would say, 
changed from what we had passed on the House floor last year. So this 
has the approval and the backing of Senator Byrd and the Senate, and it 
was passed without any kind of interruption in the conference last 
year.

                              {time}  1645

  So the gentleman is suggesting I reopen that. What I would tell the 
gentleman is that we would continue to say that this language only is 
intended not to challenge or to stop any kind of research or education, 
but when we cross the line to advocacy, we have gone too far. When we 
spend money in the hopes of the developing nations of the world coming 
on board, we are crossing that line.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this discussion.
  Let me just ask the chairman, does he believe it would be appropriate 
in this language for our State Department or other agencies of the 
government to continue a dialogue with the developing nations to try to 
get them to come into the umbrella of the Kyoto Protocol, to try to get 
them to agree to join us in some of the standards which many of us want 
to be implemented; what the gentleman believes is an appropriate 
expenditure under this language? Because that is our concern.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I went to both 
Kyoto and Buenos Aires, and we tried in the hardest way we could to get 
the developing nations on board in a voluntary fashion. I say again, if 
we were to expend monies to help the developing nations come into the 
picture, and I think that may be what they want, we are in violation of 
the very wording, the very language we have here. We would be in 
violation, in fact, of the Senate, which voted 95 to zero to say 
simply, bring the developing nations into the picture, bring them on 
board. They must be participants. It does not mean we do it for them, 
they have to be participants.
  That is what this language simply says, is do not do anything until 
they become, on their own, participants in this process. Along the way 
we do not stop any, any voluntary action on the part of anybody. It is 
taxpayer dollars that we are talking about here.
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will continue to 
yield, Mr. Chairman, let me take one more stab at this to see if we 
could reach some meeting of the minds in some regard.
  What I am searching for is some way for the gentleman to express or 
this Congress to express the belief that it is appropriate for us to be 
able to negotiate with some of these developing nations to urge them to 
agree to some of the limitations we need them to agree to so we can get 
to a global treaty in this regard.
  I am searching for some indication from the Chair that he believes 
that is appropriate, and if so, some manifestation of that.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
further, let me respond by saying that this language has been very, 
very carefully crafted. It is not to say that I would be a cement wall 
in terms of resisting conversation. I never have been. I have continued 
to be open, and on three different occasions last year we changed this 
language. It has been in a state of evolution.
  I think it is at a point where very honestly, even though we would 
entertain conversations or suggestions from anybody, it would only be 
to the extent of not spending dollars for implementation.
  If we cross that line, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to 
his credit, and I respect him and thank him for it, shares that whole 
position. If Members read the amendment that was passed last year on 
the House floor, it was his amendment. It clarified where we are on 
this business of implementation. I think it would be worthwhile 
rereading that.
  Obviously I would be happy to talk to the gentleman in the future. 
But I would say, do a re-read of that amendment. It is pretty specific 
about what we can or cannot do. We are not stopping research, we are 
not stopping development, we are not stopping voluntary movement. What 
we are saying, however, is do not spend any taxpayer dollars until the 
Senate ratifies the treaty.
  So to that end, I am always willing to talk to anybody about this 
subject,

[[Page 20124]]

and I am not stifling debate, but I think for purposes of this bill and 
at this moment, that I can just say to the gentleman, yes, we will have 
that conversation in the future. But I think this language should 
stand, because it is the will of this body. It is a bipartisan will, 
too. It is both bodies.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If hope still springs eternal, I yield 
again to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. As a new Member, hope still springs eternal. We will 
consider that a crack in the door, to some degree.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, the doors are not necessarily cracked, but we can talk out in 
front of those doors, if you will.
  I do not mean to suggest this language is going down. I am just 
saying, I would be happy to talk to the gentleman about it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will say two things. We will withdraw the amendment at this time, but I 
do think it very important for us in this Chamber to find out how we 
can get the developing nations to join us to go forward on solving this 
problem so that our institution is not seen as the institution that 
puts our head in the sand on this issue.
  I will have a dialogue with the Chair and other Members.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, climate change is a global 
problem that requires a global solution. The Administration's is 
engaged in a full court press to ensure that developing countries are 
part of this global solution and to ensure that international efforts 
to address climate change are cost effective. The Congress has called 
on the President to engage developing countries and to protect the 
economic interests of the United States.
  Section 620 of the bill apparently would make it difficult--maybe 
impossible--for our government to advance these foreign policy 
objectives and interests of the United States.
  Providing technical assistance to developing countries, sharing the 
U.S.'s successful experiences with market-based mechanisms and 
vigorously advancing U.S. business interests does NOT constitute a 
backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
  We should be encouraging the Administration to continue to advance 
the interests of the U.S. in the on-going international climate change 
negotiations. But instead, the language now in the bill directs us to 
put our heads in the sand. That's the wrong message to send, and we 
should delete it from the bill.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-284 offered by Mr. 
     Tiahrt:
       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC.   . NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGIOUS OR MORAL 
                   BELIEFS.

       No part of any appropriation contained in this Act may be 
     used, directly or indirectly, to discriminate against, 
     denigrate, or otherwise undermine the religious or moral 
     beliefs of students who participate in programs for which 
     financial assistance is provided from that appropriation or 
     of the parents or legal guardians of such students.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).


             Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
language in my amendment, and to proceed with the modified amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-284, as modified, 
     offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       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 to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against, denigrate, or otherwise undermine 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation has a tradition of protecting religious 
liberties. Our forefathers fought for these liberties here and around 
the globe. Even today, we encourage other nations like Russia and China 
to respect the religious liberty of their own citizens.
  But right here in our own government, under the guise of youth 
violence protection, we devalue and demean the religious liberty we 
have worked so hard to protect. Our own Justice Department has 
sanctioned literature that undermines the values and virtues our 
parents are trying to pass on to their children.
  Specific faiths, such as Baptist and Pentecostal, have been linked to 
hate groups. Who knows what faith the Justice Department will denigrate 
next, the Jewish faith? The American Methodist Episcopal? Catholics?
  In their curriculum, the Department of Justice ties prejudice 
directly to religious organizations, violating the long-held belief 
that our government will protect religious liberty for our citizens. 
All this amendment does is restrict the Department of Justice from 
spending our tax dollars to undermine the values that parents are 
trying to teach their kids.
  All I am saying is we should not devalue the religious liberty we 
fought so hard to protect, both here in our own country and across the 
globe. This amendment respects parents' faith and supports their 
efforts to raise children with a set of values in hopes of making a 
better America than the one we live in today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. SERRANO. I seek the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may I split the time and 
reserve some of it under that yielding?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the gentleman may.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the thrust of this amendment. Some of it 
seems to me unobjectionable, but I think it would be a mistake to adopt 
it. The gentleman did narrow it substantially. There is a mismatch 
between the description of the amendment and the text. There is less of 
a mismatch, but there still is one.
  To the amendment as originally made in order by the Committee on 
Rules we did not object, because I do think it ought to be able to go 
forward without objection. But had we objected, it would have covered 
all programs in the Department of Commerce and the Department of State. 
It now, however, covers all Justice Department programs, so we are not 
now just dealing with juvenile justice.
  To the extent that the Department of Justice funds any law school 
studies, this would be covered by this amendment.
  Here are the problems. Discriminate against? No, we should certainly 
ban discrimination. I believe we already do by statute. Denigrate 
directly? I think the government should not denigrate. But undermine? 
What about those who have a religious belief that evolution is a 
mistake? That would appear to include the majority whip of this House, 
from our debate on juvenile justice. If

[[Page 20125]]

adopted, this amendment would prohibit any program funded by the 
Justice Department to teach evolution.
  Among the religions, by the way, whose beliefs could not be 
undermined or denigrated would be the Nation of Islam. I mention that 
because they appear to me to have a creation theory that is very 
strange, and I would hope if that came up it could be undermined.
  This says we cannot fund any program through the Department of 
Justice, not just in juvenile justice but any program that undermines 
someone's religious beliefs, no matter how strange their religious 
beliefs. We cannot, under this bill, undermine beliefs of those in the 
Church of Scientology.
  Now, this is not an opt-out. This is not an amendment that said that 
if you are personally offensive to Scientologists, Nation of Islam, and 
a few others, they can leave. No one can teach something which 
undermines the beliefs of those groups. I think our students are of 
sterner stuff, and not only should not be, but they cannot be protected 
in a free society from anything which would undermine their religious 
beliefs.
  Indeed, we have religions which believe directly contrary things on 
common facts. There are different religions. We do religion no service 
if we homogenize it. There are sharply different versions of important 
fact questions and value questions among certain religions.
  Do we then say that if we teach monogamy, we are violating the rights 
of those members of Islam who who believe in polygamy? Polygamy is 
legal and supported in many Muslim countries. That is the problem. We 
cannot literally come close to refraining from undermining religious 
beliefs.
  So what we are doing here in the guise of protecting liberty is in 
fact to undermine it. We dumb down educational programs. Again, we are 
not just talking about violence protection programs, we are talking 
about anything that the Department of Justice funds.
  If the Department of Justice wants to fund a study on this or that or 
the other and wants to bring law schools in, it cannot be involved. I 
do think it is legitimate to say there are religions of which I do not 
think a great deal. I do not want the government officially to 
denigrate them, but I do not think we should say it in that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano), does the gentleman from New York intend to control the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. SERRANO. No, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) controls the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) control the time?
  Mr. SERRANO. Yes, I do.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are talking about dissenting views 
on evolution. I just think that we should not be in a position where we 
are picking one side or another in our tax dollars. We should just 
recognize both sides, and not demean one side or the other.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Too often when issues like this that have moral or religious 
overtones are raised here, they are rejected on theories of 
constitutional purity. The constitutional prohibition, for example, 
against the establishment of religions, or the companion philosophy of 
separation of church and State, many times become excuses for avoiding 
debates that focus on morality and character of citizens.
  I believe that the erection of these phrases as roadblocks to such 
discussions is wrong and does a disservice to the intentions of our 
Founding Fathers, who never intended that governmental interaction with 
its people be sanitized of all religious flavors.
  In fact, I think they intended exactly the opposite. They understood 
that it was the multitude of religious beliefs that undergirded the 
character of the citizenry. This amendment simply makes one small 
statement of reaffirmation of that concept by prohibiting those who 
receive funds through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention from using those funds to undermine or denigrate the 
religious beliefs of children or adults who participate in the 
programs.
  I urge support for the amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intellectual honesty from 
the gentleman from Kansas. He now makes it clear. The purpose and 
intent of this amendment would be, for instance, to prevent any program 
which taught evolution as a fact, because evolution is contested. It 
would prevent, it would appear to me, any program which taught that 
monogamy was the preferred form of marital relationship since Islam, a 
very respectable religion, increasingly represented in America, in some 
of its forms allows polygamy. It is not allowed by American law; but, 
theoretically, there is strong support for it. There is also of course 
the position of the black Muslims.
  So I would hope that we would not do this. I understand the intent, 
but the effect of this would be very severely to circumscribe the 
intellectual content of any program that can be offered by the 
Department of Justice. I do not think we should make that assault in 
the name of something that is quite valuable, religious liberty.
  So discriminate against, we should not do that; and denigrate 
people's religion, we should not do that. But when one prohibits 
undermining any religious tenant by any program from the Department of 
Justice, one quite literally would ban the chances of any serious and 
thoughtful intellectual program and would, in fact, I believe, undercut 
a number of things.
  Let me throw in one other. There are important religions in this 
country which believe that the death penalty is a mistake. These are 
people who have firm religious convictions that say ``thou shalt not 
kill'' is absolute. Pass this amendment, and no Justice Department 
study could, it seems to me, be funded to show the validity and 
importance of the death penalty.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not about the Scopes trial and 
evolution. It is not about monogamists or polygamy. It is not about the 
creation theory of Islam. This is about youth violence programs, and we 
do not think it is proper for the Department of Justice to take one 
side or the other when it comes to religious liberties.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) to close.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, overheated rhetoric aside, and let me make 
it clear, I do not think the Justice Department should be teaching 
evolution or creation. It is not the business of the Justice 
Department. I, furthermore, do not believe the Justice Department 
should be advocating or not advocating the death penalty.
  Studies are not affected here. This is the advocacy. Discriminate 
against, denigrating. Quite frankly, the word ``otherwise'' here is 
qualified by discriminating and denigrating. It says otherwise 
undermine, which is in the English language predicated on the first two 
definitions. I believe we are chasing a red herring here.
  Religious freedom is a basic constitutional right in this country, as 
is freedom of speech. Obviously there are limitations in any right. No 
right to yell in a theater. No right to sexually harass. One cannot 
violate other laws. Christians should not use government funds to 
discriminate or to denigrate Hindus. Muslims should not use government 
funds to discriminate against or to denigrate Jews.
  If Christians like myself, joined by nearly every other major 
religion on these particular points, believe that whatever 
predispositions one may or may want have, that some behaviors

[[Page 20126]]

are morally wrong, such as child sexual abuse or alcoholism or spouse 
abuse, the government has no right to denigrate charasmatics, 
Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, Hindus or anyone else who would hold 
such beliefs.
  If one practices hate like those evil persons who murdered 
homosexuals, blacks, Christians, or Jews in our country; like those who 
have harassed through physical threats or church burnings, one has no 
protection for illegal and immoral acts here in America or without 
repentance eternally.
  But where moral principles differ, the government has no business 
whatsoever in discriminating against, denigrating, or otherwise 
undermining religions and religious belief.
  At a time when America is in a moral crisis, the last thing we need 
is the government attacking religions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered By Mr. Bass

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

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-284 offered by Mr. 
     Bass:
       At the appropriate place in the title relating to ``GENERAL 
     PROVISIONS'', insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS.

       (a) Plan.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall develop and implement a plan 
     for the efficient allocation of telephone numbers.
       (b) Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include mechanisms to ensure portability of telephone 
     numbers among services and service providers within 
     individual rating areas, if there is a bona fide demand, and 
     establish rules applicable to service providers not subject 
     to or otherwise not in compliance with such number 
     portability requirements;
       (2) take into account any telecommunications technology 
     widely available as of March 31, 2000, that requires a 
     telephone number;
       (3) consider and take steps to minimize the total societal 
     costs and impacts of the plan for the efficient allocation of 
     telephone numbers and any specific number relief or 
     conservation measures that may arise therefrom; and
       (4) provide for allocating unassigned telephone numbers 
     among telecommunications carriers in blocks of 1,000 in order 
     to fairly share such numbers without the waste associated 
     with allocating in blocks of 10,000.
       (c) Delegation of Numbering Jurisdiction.--During the 
     period beginning 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and ending upon the Commission fully implementing 
     the plan required by subsection (a), the Commission shall, 
     upon the request of a State commission whose State has been 
     determined to be within 12 months of telephone number 
     capacity, delegate to the State commission the jurisdiction 
     of the Commission over telecommunications numbering with 
     respect to the State under section 251(e)(1) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)) to the 
     extent that such delegation will permit the State commission 
     to implement measures to conserve telephone numbers, 
     including measures as follows:
       (1) To conduct audits of the use of telephone numbers and 
     central office codes.
       (2) To require telecommunications carriers to return unused 
     central office codes and to return central office codes that 
     have been obtained in a manner contrary to Federal or State 
     numbering guidelines or protocols.
       (3) To develop and establish dialing protocols applicable 
     for calls placed within the same area code or local calling 
     area (or both) of the calling party that will consider, in 
     addition to the potential effect upon competition, matters of 
     public convenience and safety and the public interest 
     generally.
       (4) To develop and implement, where the State commission 
     finds it to be in the public interest and supportive of 
     number conservation measures that it may adopt, area code 
     relief measures involving the use of overlay area codes 
     applicable to telecommunications service providers not 
     subject to or otherwise not in compliance with local number 
     portability, including a requirement that existing telephone 
     numbers assigned to or in use (or both) by such service 
     providers be transferred to the overlay area code, and 
     including a requirement that calls placed within a calling 
     party's home area code continue to be dialable on a 7-digit 
     basis.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each will control 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary, for their good-faith efforts to work on this amendment with 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a problem that is needlessly 
affecting the telephone service of millions of Americans. Year after 
year, new area codes are created, and they are created unnecessarily. 
One of the reasons for that is that the FCC has allocated telephone 
number blocks in blocks of 10,000 rather than 1,000. So the result is, 
if one has a central exchange in a small town or small area, one uses 
9,999 numbers, and one only has a couple of hundred telephones.
  What this amendment does is force the FCC to solve this problem by 
the end of March of next year so that we do not have a situation where, 
in 22 different States across the country, new area codes are assigned 
needlessly.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an issue of political philosophy. It is not 
an issue of partisanship. It is an issue of dealing with the 
bureaucracy.
  I urge all of my colleagues who support this amendment that it will 
save countless thousands of dollars to small businesses and families 
who have to adjust to new area codes needlessly because the FCC has not 
moved rapidly enough on their rulemaking proposal to support this 
amendment and move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to recognize and thank the chairman of the 
House Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, for their good 
faith negotiations on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a serious problem is needlessly affecting the telephone 
service of millions of Americans. Year after year, new area codes are 
created and imposed on consumers and businesses across the country. We 
could all understand and accept new area codes if we actually ran out 
of numbers in the old ones. The truth, however, is that more phone 
numbers in each area code are stranded by bureaucracy than ever get 
assigned to a residential or commercial line.
  One of the main problems is that phone numbers are distributed in 
blocks of 10,000--without regard to demand. That means that there are 
thousands of phone numbers in many area codes that never get used and 
are wasted. This amendment would require that phone numbers are 
allocated in blocks of 1,000. Therefore, if a location only needs 2,000 
numbers then they can get 2,000 numbers--and not tie up the full 10,000 
numbers.
  The FCC has been working on the problem now for well over a year. 
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have had their area code changed.
  Sometimes new area codes are added geographically. A state gets split 
in two--half keeps the old code and half gets a new code. Sometimes new 
codes are overlaid on top of the existing code, where you would keep 
the area code you have for existing phone numbers, but would use the 
new area code for new numbers. Sometimes you get a combination of these 
solutions.
  Almost one-third of the 215 area codes in the United States are 
likely to be exhausted within two years. California, Florida, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, and Virginia each have at least two area 
codes that are in extreme jeopardy and require immediate action. 
Another 11 states, including my own state of New Hampshire, have at 
least one area code that will be exhausted within the next 16 months.
  This bipartisan amendment would require the FCC to address this 
problem by March 31,

[[Page 20127]]

2000. This amendment also provides states that have been determined to 
be in jeopardy by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator with 
limited flexibility to conserve their current area codes. Again, this 
state jurisdiction would only be provided to states that are in 
jeopardy.
  Because we allocate phone numbers so inefficiently, we will exhaust 
the remaining pool of area codes by 2008. To fix this could cost up to 
$150 billion and would have to add at least one additional digit to all 
phone numbers in America.
  We know this problem is coming. Let's act before it becomes another 
crisis that could have been avoided.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to claim time in opposition?
  Mr. SERRANO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for the purpose of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I congratulate the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). This is an excellent amendment that 
allows the PUCs of States to do the right thing.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
Representatives Bass and Kucinich. Ordinarily, I would oppose the 
addition of this type of legislation to our appropriations bill. 
However, from my district in Los Angeles, California to the state of 
Maine, we face an area code crisis that demands the extraordinary.
  The public outcry in my district in California began with the 
California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) imposition of mandatory 
one plus ten digit dialing in preparation for an area code ``overlay.'' 
For the uninitiated, instead of splitting the geographic area and 
adding a new area code, the new area code is simply overlayed to the 
existing area; all callers in the area are then required to use the 
area code for all local calls. Consequently, my next door neighbor may 
have a different area code; two phones in the same household may have a 
different area code. On the other hand, the consumer is ensured of 
holding on to his/her current number indefinitely.
  The point here is not to debate the merits of the geographic split 
versus overlay, but to understand that for many consumers, this sudden 
and increasingly frequent upheaval with respect to that most valued 
possession--the telephone--is troubling. Moreover, there have been 
unforeseen costs to consumers and businesses as a result of mandatory 
ten digit dialing; for example, no one anticipated that existing 
apartment building entry code systems would be rendered useless with 
the imposition of ten digit dialing.
  Indeed, it is the lack of ``anticipating'' which I find most 
troubling about this current situation. From the Congress, which failed 
to anticipate the problems that deregulation of the telecommunications 
industry would pose for a monopoly driven number allocation system, to 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state public utilities 
commissions that have been slow to respond. There is an urgency to this 
problem that seems to have escaped government and industry.
  Let me share with you what the result in my state has been. From 1947 
to the end of 1992, the number of area codes in California grew from 
three to 13: ten new area codes over a 45 year period. In the three 
year period from January 1997 to the end of 1999, the state will have 
doubled that figure for a total of 26 area codes. The CPUC has approved 
relief plans for another seven new area codes just in the last ten 
months. Demand in California is such that new area codes are being 
placed in jeopardy of exhaust as soon as they become operational.
  Everyone agrees that the current number allocation system is 
inefficient. These inefficiencies are directly related to policies of 
the FCC. I am encouraged that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
initiated by the FCC on May 27, 1999, reflects some understanding by 
the agency of its role in the area code exhaust crisis facing many 
states and localities. FCC Chairman Kennard also recently indicated 
that the FCC would be granting pending state petitions requesting 
greater authority to initiate number conservation strategies. However, 
I regret that the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the degree it 
has.
  We deregulated the telecommunications industry to enhance competition 
and spur technological innovation to benefit the economy and American 
consumers. I am increasingly concerned that while technology grows by 
leaps and bounds, the average American consumer is being asked to carry 
a disproportionate burden of the costs and--in the case of this area 
code mess--the inconvenience of progress.
  This is an exceedingly complicated matter: as we have found in so 
many of the matters surrounding telecommunications policy and 
deregulation. Complexity, however, should no longer be an excuse for us 
to leave it to the experts to sit down and solve the problem. They need 
to be pushed.
  Much of what the Bass/Kucinich Amendment seeks to accomplish, the FCC 
is currently engaged in. Other provisions are more controversial and 
certainly deserve more than the ten minutes of debate allotted here 
today. Adoption of the amendment signals our willingness to engage more 
fully in this issue. I offer my strong support for the amendment and 
commend the gentlemen from New Hampshire and Ohio for bringing the 
issue to the floor.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio very much 
for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bass-Kucinich amendment which 
addresses the efficient allocation of telephone numbers. I 
wholeheartedly agree that the FCC should develop and implement a plan 
to address the problem of area code proliferation which is plaguing 
communities across the United States. Moreover, I concur that State 
Commissions should be given the authority to implement number 
conservation methods, especially if the state is about to reach its 
capacity of numbers. States should be given the authority to deal with 
the hoarding of unused area codes by local carriers.
  Throughout California, the proliferation of area codes is a problem. 
During the last two years, the number of area codes in California has 
risen from 13 to 28, and as many as 14 additional area codes may be 
implemented by 2002. By contrast, it took 45 years for California to 
acquire 13 area codes.
  In fact, there is a plan in my district either to split the San 
Fernando Valley into two area codes or subject us to an ``overlay.'' I 
have heard from many constituents who feel either option will 
inconvenience them unnecessarily. Homeowners have told me that they do 
not want to dial ten numbers to call their next-door neighbors. 
Business owners are upset because they fear they will lose contact with 
their customers. Their feelings of frustration and annoyance are 
totally understandable.
  I want to leave you with one statistic: the California Public 
Utilities Commission estimates that only 35 to 40 million numbers are 
in use, while 206 million numbers will be available by the end of this 
year in California. It is clear that the current capacity of numbers 
has not been exhausted. I believe California is not alone in its 
predicament and many reports have documented a similar underutilization 
in other states.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support of this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his 
cooperation in working on this and to the senior Members, who are the 
chairmen of the committees.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more than 2 billion potential telephone 
numbers right now, but only 10 percent of them are in use. So there are 
plenty of telephone numbers. But due to the FCC mismanagement, roughly 
70 million customers have been told they have to switch area codes due 
to a scarcity of numbers in their area code.
  Now, the U.S. is only a few years away from running out of area 
codes. This will necessitate adding an extra digit to all telephone 
numbers. Now think about that for a moment. If one's phone number is 
224-3121, and they

[[Page 20128]]

want to make it 224-31210, just adding that extra digit is going to 
cost consumers in this country $150 billion. We are talking about the 
largest telephone rate hike in history here.
  The Bass-Kucinich amendment would direct the FCC to make sure that 
more telephone numbers were assigned efficiently before new area codes 
are imposed. That would save consumers $150 billion in preventable 
telephone bill charges.
  The State Regulatory Utility Commissioners support the goal of this 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Chairman of the 
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners as well as the 
resolution of that body which, in effect, endorses the principles that 
are in this amendment by myself and the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass).
  I include the letter and resolution for the Record as follows:

         The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
           Commissioners,
                                                   August 5, 1999.
     Re: Number conservation

     Hon. Thomas Bliley,
     Chairman, House Commerce Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley: I write to request that you support 
     enabling state commissions to respond effectively to 
     telephone number exhaustion. I am Chairman of the 
     Telecommunications Committee of the National Association of 
     Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). NARUC represents 
     state and territorial commissions which regulate 
     telecommunications services. We have appreciated Congress's 
     close concern with Telecommunications Act implementation, and 
     its interest in the views of state public utility 
     commissions.
       Many state commissioners in affected states support current 
     Congressional proposals to enable state commissions to 
     respond to the numbering crisis. NARUC itself has not 
     endorsed specific Congressional action, as opposed to Federal 
     Communications Action to broaden state commission ability to 
     respond, subject to Congressional oversight. However the 
     problem is addressed, the need for state authority is 
     compelling and is urgent.
       Telephone number exhaustion is perhaps the most heated and 
     controversial issue state public utility commissions in large 
     and medium-sized states. Residential and business customers 
     become more upset about area code changes than about most 
     rate increases. Customers associate their area code with 
     their physical location and also resent the expense and 
     confusion caused by area code changes. Customers perceive 
     numbering and area codes as state issues and focus their 
     anger on state public utility commissions. State commissions 
     are blamed for the train wreck but lack adequate tools either 
     to avoid it or to clean up the mess after it occurs.
       State public utility commissions have taken a proactive and 
     constructive approach to numbering issues. State commissions 
     have been fully engaged with the Federal Communications 
     Commission, where several petitions are currently pending, 
     and with the North American Numbering Council on all aspects 
     of number planning. State commissions have emphasized 
     conservation measures before exhaustion occurs and have 
     devised appropriate measures for their states when area code 
     relief is required. Unfortunately, state commissions are 
     currently hamstrung in their efforts to conserve numbers and 
     respond to numbering exhaust.
       Recently, NARUC adopted a resolution concerning numbering 
     exhaust and conservation, focusing primarily on possible FCC 
     action. Among other things NARUC urges that states be allowed 
     to implement thousand block number pooling and be granted 
     strong enforcement authority over number conservation. I have 
     attached a copy of the resolution.
       Expanded state commission ability to mitigate and respond 
     to number exhaustion is consistent with the cooperative 
     federalist design of the Telecommunications Act, is 
     consistent with the development of competition, and is the 
     right thing to do for telecommunications customers.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Rowe,
                                                         Chairman,
       Enclosure.

    Resolution on the FCC's Number Resource Optimization Rulemaking 
                               Proceeding

       Whereas, The current numbering administration process for 
     the North American Numbering Plan has proven to be inadequate 
     and has led to the inefficient use of numbering resources and 
     the premature assignment of new area codes; and
       Whereas, The current numbering crisis demands immediate 
     action by the FCC, and failure to act expeditiously will 
     result in substantial disruption, including the activation of 
     new, unnecessary area codes that will permanently destroy 
     geographic associations with specific area codes, will 
     needlessly subject both residential and business customers to 
     unnecessary costs, confusion and inconvenience, and will 
     wastefully consume the limited resources of both 
     telecommunications providers and State regulators; and
       Whereas, Companion number conservation bills, H.R. 2439 and 
     S.B. 765, have been introduced in Congress by Representative 
     Kucinich and Senator Collins, respectively, to reduce the 
     need for new area codes that are being created due to the 
     inefficient practices of the telephone companies; and
       Whereas, The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 
     Number Resource Optimization Docket, CC Docket No. 99-200, 
     FCC 99-122 (June 2, 1999), requests comments on many 
     important issues and proposes several different approaches to 
     resolve the numbering crisis; and
       Whereas, The States and territories believe that adherence 
     to the principles and approaches outlined below is essential 
     to the creation of an effective, competitively-neutral, 
     administratively feasible numbering administration system; 
     now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the National 
     Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), 
     convened in its 1999 Summer Meeting in San Francisco, 
     California, that NARUC supports the FCCs efforts in its NPRM 
     on numbering resources and encourages State commissions to 
     file comments with the FCC that:
       a. Urge the FCC to abandon the voluntary Central Office 
     Code Administration Guidelines and establish more stringent, 
     enforceable number assignment rules and regulations, and
       b. Urge the FCC not to give carriers the freedom to ``pick 
     and choose'' the number conservation measures in which they 
     wish to participate and instead grant States and territories, 
     which have an obligation to protect the public interest, 
     flexibility in developing a number conservation plan which is 
     consistent with national standards but which also meets the 
     State's specific needs; and
       c. Urge the FCC to establish uniform standards for thousand 
     block pooling and allow States and territories to require the 
     implementation of thousand block pooling as soon as possible; 
     and
       d. Urge the FCC to allow States and territories to 
     implement thousand block pooling in all LNP-capable switches 
     in all areas of the country, not just the top 100 MSAs; and
       e. Urge the FCC not to condition the implementation of 
     thousand block pooling upon rate center consolidation; and
       f. Request that States and territories be given strong 
     enforcement authority over all code holders (including 
     wireless carriers) and access to all information collected by 
     the FCC and NANPA; and be it further,
       Resolved, That NARUC counsel is directed to file comments 
     consistent with this resolution with the FCC.

  Mr. Chairman, I would quote from the letter which says that 
``Expanded state commission ability to mitigate and respond to number 
exhaustion is consistent with the cooperative Federalist design of the 
Telecommunications Act, is consistent with the development of 
competition, and is the right thing to do for telecommunications 
customers.''
  So this is from the chairman of the National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners in support of the principles 
established in the Bass-Kucinich amendment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking for the support of the Members of this 
House so that those tens of millions in telephone customers who are our 
constituents across this country will not be burdened with the 
inconvenience and with the extra expense of having to go through one 
area code change after another when, in fact, there are plenty of 
telephone numbers to go around, and there is a way to manage 
efficiently the use of telephone numbers, and this legislation 
guarantees that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
understand under the rules that the opposition was seized by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I just want to say a word that 
the Committee on Commerce strongly opposes this amendment and asked me 
to make sure that the House is aware that there is strong opposition to 
this amendment, particularly because of the fact that number 
portability and wireless phones is something that creates great 
confusion and problems. This amendment could lead to those kinds of 
problems. The Committee on Commerce has examined this amendment in 
great detail and has urged me and the House to reject it on that basis.
  This could, in fact, create enormous expense on some of the local 
telephone companies because they would have to service number 
portability over long

[[Page 20129]]

areas. Many of us have petitioned the FCC, and the FCC has agreed not 
to require this kind of portability in mobile phones or to have a 
different number system for mobile and fixed telephones as this 
amendment might end up requiring.
  So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to go 
along with the Committee on Commerce on this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to again assert that I have a letter from 
the chairman of the Telecommunications Committee of the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in support of the 
principles that are in this Bass-Kucinich amendment.
  I also have a resolution on the FCC's resource optimization 
rulemaking proceeding which has been passed by the National Association 
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners which, in fact, states that they 
are asking for support of, again, the principles embodied in Bass-
Kucinich.
  I would further assert that the problem is caused by the FCC 
preemption of States' abilities to solve this area code situation.

                              {time}  1715

  The States have the ability to do that. Our amendment gives the 
States the power to resolve this issue. And before preemption happened, 
New York State solved a New York City problem with a 917 area code. 
Since then, they were preempted by the FCC.
  Now, telephone number exhaustion is perceived as a local problem, but 
the truth is that the States are best able to solve the local problem, 
and it is self-evident at this point. Just think about it. About 10 
percent of the numbers are being used. This is a practical matter which 
affects millions of Americans. Ten percent of their phone numbers are 
being used, and yet the FCC permits new area codes to be created until 
there will be no more area codes left and we will have to add another 
digit and that will cost consumers $150 billion.
  Give this amendment a chance. Give consumers a chance. Do not pave 
the way for the largest telephone rate hike in history. Let us enforce 
a discipline upon the FCC for number conservation and for conservation 
of the fiscal resources of our constituents. We do not need more area 
codes, we need an FCC which has the direction from this Congress to do 
its job and to quit wasting the telecommunications resources of this 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bass and I offer a commonsense amendment to protect 
consumers. Our amendment will eliminate the inconvenience and cost 
experienced by consumers when the telephone company announces that the 
area code has to change. Our amendment deals with the root cause of 
area code changes. Our amendment will prevent the exhaustion of 
telephone numbers and save the economy about $150 billion in 
preventable emergency measures.
  If the rate at which new area codes are being introduced continues, 
we may run out of area codes by as soon as 2007. If that occurs, we 
could be forced to add one more digit to all US phone numbers.
  The FCC and other reliable sources estimate that the cost to the 
economy of adding an extra digit to all telephone numbers could be as 
high as $150-billion. The cost would cover reprogramming all computer 
networks and data bases to recognize the expanded numbering format.
  It is about the same as the cost of fixing the Y2K bug. But unlike 
the Y2K problem, the coming crisis in telephone number allocation is 
entirely preventable.
  Through years of wastefulness, there is now a crisis in area code 
exhaustion. Residents all over this nation are familiar with the 
proliferation of new area codes due to the exhaustion of number supply. 
Residents in my own district of Parma, Ohio, have first hand knowledge. 
In Parma, the telephone Company declared that it had to split Parma 
into two areas codes. The residents decided to fight back and have 
contested the need for the area code split in the Ohio Supreme Court. 
In the process of that effort, they learned that over ninety percent of 
the telephone numbers in the old area code were not even in use, but 
were wasted because of telephone company allocation practices. Indeed, 
Lockheed Martin, the private company that now manages the assignment of 
new area codes in the nation, has said that only five percent of the 
nearly 6.4-billion potential telephone numbers are actually in use. 
Lockheed Martin has also said that if an alternative to these wasteful 
practices is not adopted immediately, the hundred billion dollar 
solution of adding a new digit to all telephone numbers will have to be 
employed.
  Our amendment directs the FCC to move quickly to prevent the 
exhaustion of area codes, minimize cost to consumers and, in case of 
emergency, delegate to state utility commissioners the ability to 
prevent area code exhaust. Our amendment promotes competition by 
ensuring that consumers can take their telephone numbers with them if 
they choose to switch carriers. Our amendment restores the ability of 
consumers to dial only seven digits and reach anyone in their area 
code. And, our amendment will save the economy about $150 billion in 
unproductive, and preventable emergency remedial action.
  The Bass-Kucinich amendment is pro-consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this for all of those people 
across this country who are fed up with what has happened, with area 
codes being split, and there not being an exhaustion of telephone 
numbers.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to urge all Members of Congress to support this important 
amendment.
  If the issue is cost, no cost is greater than the unnecessary 
addition of an area code versus what might have been easily avoided in 
States all over the country. I know that if there are any concerns that 
have been voiced on the part of the Committee on Commerce we can work 
them out in conference.
  We need to move now because many States across the country are going 
to get second or third or fourth or fifth area codes within the next 12 
months and it will be totally needless. So I urge support of the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friends Congressman Bass and Congressman Kucinich. 
Currently, my home State of Maine faces a problem. Due to Federal 
Communications Commission rules governing the distribution of telephone 
numbers, Maine is allegedly ``running out'' of phone numbers.
  Maine has one area code: 207. Last year, our Public Utilities 
Commission was informed that the numbers in the 207 area code would be 
``depleted'' by July 2000. If nothing changes, Maine will be forced to 
implement a new area code, dividing the state and forcing individuals 
and small businesses to make expensive changes.
  We have been examining this issue closely. Much to our surprise, we 
found that Maine isn't really running out of phone numbers. In fact, 
there are plenty of numbers still available--5.7 million of them, to be 
exact. However, because of the current administration of numbers, 
Maine's Public Utilities Commission currently has no way to make use of 
these surplus numbers. Instead, they will continue to go unused, while 
my State will be forced to implement a second area code. We could avoid 
this situation for a long time to come, but only if allowed to carry 
out a more practical and flexible assignment of numbers.
  The current practice of allocating blocks of 10,000 numbers minimum 
to each carrier is wasteful. Even if a small local carrier only uses 
100 lines, they are forced to keep the other 9,900 possible numbers in 
reserve. This simply makes no sense, Mr. President.
  That is why I support the Bass-Kucinich amendment which would allow 
for smaller, more flexible minimum blocks of numbers to be allocated to 
each local carrier in a state. This amendment also calls on the Federal 
Communications Commission to conduct a study of conservation methods 
that could be implemented so that we can forestall the unnecessary 
nationwide depletion of phone numbers by 2007 and avoid having to take 
extraordinary measures such as adding a fourth digit to area codes.
  It may surprise my colleagues to learn that there are currently no 
plans to conserve the available phone numbers we have today. The FCC 
also has not allowed states such as Maine to implement efforts they 
have devised in order to conserve numbers. If we simply gave states the 
flexibility to allocate numbers in smaller blocks, say of 1,000, then 
my State of Maine would not be facing the need for a new area code. If 
we implement area code conservation, then we will be able to forestall 
the depletion of available phone numbers. These are things my State's 
Public Utilities Commission has petitioned to do. I congratulate my 
colleagues for offering this common sense approach to the allocation of 
telephone

[[Page 20130]]

numbers, and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, today I reluctantly rise to express my 
extreme disappointment that this amendment is being offered today as a 
part of this appropriations process. I have attempted to work with both 
the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, and the gentleman from 
Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, in order to help achieve the objective of more 
efficient allocation of telephone numbers. It is unfortunate that 
despite efforts to broker a solution, Mr. Bass and Mr. Kucinich feel 
the need to proceed with an amendment outside the regular authorizing 
process. I must strongly oppose this amendment.
  It is no secret that many states are facing changes in area codes as 
a result of an explosion in demand for telephone numbers caused by new 
services such as fax machines and home computers. We have the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to thank for this explosion of 
technological services that exist today. But telephone numbering is a 
Federal issue affecting interstate commerce, and requires one set of 
cohesive national rules. Congress decided in the Telecommunications Act 
to place the responsibility for crafting these national rules with our 
nation's expert agency, the Federal Communications Commission.
  It is imperative that we maintain a cohesive and coherent set of 
national rules for the allocation of telephone numbers, both to 
preserve this important public resource and to ensure that the 
Telecommunications Act continues to deliver on its promise of 
competition and transparency in the telecommunications industry.
  I have been working with the FCC to expedite improvements to a 
process to efficiently assign telephone numbers. I will submit for the 
Record a letter that I recently received from FCC Chairman William 
Kennard about progress in this area. He states that the FCC plans to 
adopt a plan for the efficient allocation of telephone numbers by March 
31, 2000. Chairman Kennard writes, ``With respect to the provision of 
mandatory delegation of additional authority to the States, the 
Commission recognizes that many numbering problems are local in nature. 
The Commission has invited States to seek delegations of authority to 
implement numbering conservation measures.''
  I reluctantly oppose this amendment, and urge my colleagues to allow 
for further deliberation under regular order.

                            Federal Communications Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1999.
     Hon. Thomas Bliley,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you with respect to 
     Representative Charles F. Bass's Amendment to H.R. 2670 
     regarding area code allocations. As you know, the Commission 
     is very concerned with the numbering problems faced by many 
     states. The Commission is committed to working closely with 
     the States to resolve these problems. Very recently, the 
     Commission proposed a plan that will both ameliorate these 
     problems and at the same time assure that the numbering 
     program contributes to the establishment of a national pro-
     competitive telecommunications policy.
       On June 2, 1999, the Commission released a unanimously 
     approved Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to put in place a 
     national area code conservation plan. Public comments on 
     these proposed rules are now being collected. I would like to 
     confirm to you that I will urge my fellow colleagues to 
     support release of an order by March 31, 2000 that will 
     authorize implementation of a plan for the efficient 
     allocation of telephone numbers.
       The Commission can adopt a plan by March 31, 2000, but it 
     is my understanding that the telecommunications industry 
     estimates that it will take between 10 and 19 months 
     following a regulatory order to implement thousands-block 
     pooling. Other needed or proposed changes may also require 
     additional investments of time and equipment and further 
     technological development.
       With respect to the provision of mandatory delegation of 
     additional authority to the States, the Commission recognizes 
     that many numbering problems are local in nature. The 
     Commission, therefore, has invited States to seek delegations 
     of authority to implement numbering conservation measures. 
     Currently the Commission is processing applications received 
     from California, Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Florida, and 
     Texas. We intend to address these petitions expeditiously.
       Given the strong working relationship the Commission has 
     developed with the States in addressing numbering problems, I 
     do not believe the mandatory delegation of numbering 
     authority to the States proposed in the Amendment is 
     necessary. I would strongly recommend that the Commission 
     retain the flexibility to assess States' showing of a need 
     for a delegation of authority prior to granting such 
     authority. The FCC could comply with a requirement that it 
     process State requests within a 90-day timeframe. This would 
     allow time for compliance with APA notice requirements.
           Sincerely,
                                               William E. Kennard,
                                                         Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                       IMMIGRATION EMERGENCY FUND

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $1,137,000 are rescinded.

                DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                    United States Information Agency


                 INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING OPERATIONS

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $14,829,000 are rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                     Small Business Administration


                     BUSINESS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                              (RESCISSION)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $12,400,000 are rescinded.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-284 offered by Mr. 
     Deal of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                   TITLE VIII--LIMITATION PROVISIONS

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be available for the purpose of processing or providing 
     immigrant or nonimmigrant visas 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 section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation 
to the chairman of the subcommittee and to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee with regard to this amendment.
  The problem this amendment addresses is the fact that there are 
thousands of individuals who are criminal aliens that are being 
detained in U.S. detention facilities that are in a limbo status.
  Currently, we have over 3,300 individuals in those detention 
facilities that are deportable criminal aliens. The reason that they 
are in a deportable status and in limbo is the fact their native 
countries refuse to accept their return. It is estimated that the cost 
of these being detained indefinitely is in excess of $80 million a 
year.
  What this amendment does is simply put further teeth in the law that 
was recognized and passed by this Congress years ago. The current law 
states that if the Attorney General notifies the Secretary of State 
that a country refuses to accept a deportable alien back, that the 
suspension will take place as to the processing of visas for 
individuals of that country until the deportees are allowed to return.
  This amendment simply puts further teeth that the funding for that 
purpose will be withheld until the country accepts their citizens back.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

[[Page 20131]]


  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I rise in support of this amendment.
  I understand that the INS is holding over 3,300 cases of aliens with 
deportation orders who are awaiting return to their home countries but 
for whom their home countries will not provide the necessary travel 
documents to allow their return.
  Of the 3,300 cases, most of them are from only four countries. Over 
half, obviously, are from Cuba, 1,800; Vietnam, 674; Cambodia, 30; and 
Laos, 35. Of the remaining cases, the majority of them are more than 6 
months old and come from 102 different countries. So the four countries 
are the big numbers here.
  In some instances, the home country will not accept the person 
because they do not want ``only criminals'' back, or they will simply 
refuse to recognize an individual once they have established residence 
in the U.S. Others will claim paperwork delays are long because of 
recordkeeping problems.
  In an effort to remedy the problem, the 1996 Immigration Act 
contained a provision which stated that upon being notified by the 
Attorney General that the government of a foreign country refuses to 
take back its nationals, the Secretary of State shall order consular 
officers in that country to stop issuing immigrant and nonimmigrant 
visas to nationals of that country until the Attorney General notifies 
her that the country has accepted their nationals.
  Even though the INS has stated that there are problems returning 
persons to some countries, we are told the Secretary of State has never 
ordered the suspension of issuance of visas for this purpose. The State 
Department claims that neither INS or the Attorney General have ever 
formally notified them of problems, although the State Department 
admits that they have been contacted by INS about their troubles in 
returning some persons.
  I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary gets serious in 
assisting the Attorney General in returning these criminal and illegal 
aliens. We are using valuable and scarce and declining detention 
spaces, bed spaces, on persons for whom deportation has already been 
ordered and the country refuses to receive them. So I urge our 
colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment. It is well thought 
out, and it constitutes a real problem.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support the Deal amendment. We have 
noncitizens committing felonies in America, we are incarcerating them, 
and we are paying $80 million a year to keep them in prison. The law 
says that we can deny the issuance of visas to their countries of 
origin and to their citizens of their countries of origin, but we are 
not doing it.
  The Deal amendment is absolutely needed. I want to commend and 
compliment the gentleman for his effort.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that the law says the Secretary of State shall, 
not may, but shall deny visas to other people from that country until 
they accept their criminal aliens back.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Deal amendment 
makes sure that the respective officials understand the intent of 
Congress to enforce this law.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the United States must maintain a tough and 
uncompromising policy on deportation of criminal non-citizens.
  U.S. prisons and INS detention facilities are bulging to the point 
that many non-citizen convicts could be released into society in the 
near future.
  This is wrong.
  Those who abuse their immigration status by committing crimes in this 
country must not be allowed to stay.
  The INS is already overburdened and underfunded to the extent that it 
cannot fulfill its enforcement mission.
  This situation is only made worse when it is forced to deal with 
individuals whose home countries refuse to take them back. The Federal 
Government spends approximately $67 per day and $80 million per year to 
detain these individuals--sometimes indefinitely.
  For this reason, I am in strong support of Congressman Deal's 
amendment. I have been working on similar legislation myself.
  It is ridiculous that we continue to grant immigration visas to 
countries who will not cooperate with our law enforcement efforts.
  There must be some recourse.
  In fact, we already have the legal authority to do something.
  The State Department can sanction these countries by denying them 
immigrant and non-immigrant visas. However, the agency has never used 
this authority.
  We cannot continue to let U.S. taxpayers bear the burden of other 
countries' reprehensible behavior and of our own government's 
unwillingness to take aggressive action to correct this problem.
  We must put the Administration and the State Department on notice 
that weakening our policies toward criminal non-citizens is not 
acceptable.
  If a criminal from Mexico or Israel must be deported, so must a 
criminal from Vietnam or Russia.
  Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support Congressman Deal's 
amendment.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       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 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 BOP as 
     appropriately secure for housing such a prisoner.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It 
says none of the funds made available in this bill can be used by the 
Justice Department to, in fact, transport 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 another facility which is certified by the Bureau of 
Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such prisoners.
  Here is the bottom line of the Traficant amendment. It stops the 
utilization of any funds by the Department of Justice to transport a 
dangerous maximum high-security prisoner to a prison or a detention 
facility that is not secure enough or adequately staffed or rated or 
certified to house that type of dangerous criminal.
  This is absolutely necessary. It will reduce the incidence of crimes 
against our security guards and other fellow inmates, and it is a 
commonsense, practical decision that I recommend very strongly the 
House support.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. The classifications of inmates should match the 
classifications of the facilities, especially in the case of maximum 
security inmates who need the heightened security features to protect 
the general public, the prison employees, and other inmates.
  I believe that this rule is followed in the Federal prison system, 
but for the last 2 years we have heard testimony that certain D.C. 
inmates, being transferred to alternative facilities while waiting 
transfer to more permanent facilities, were incorrectly transferred to 
facilities with a lower classification. This meant that inmates that 
the Federal system would classify as maximum or high security were 
being placed in medium-security facilities.

[[Page 20132]]

As a result, several incidents occurred, including the death of several 
inmates and the escape of several others into the community.
  Let me make this clear. The director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
has testified that classifications are important and that facilities 
should provide the necessary level of security for its inmates. So I 
would urge our colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman, 
and I thank him for offering it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 110, after line 6, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for participation by United 
     States delegates to the Standing Consultative Commission in 
     any activity of the Commission to implement the Memorandum of 
     Understanding Relating to the Treaty Between the United 
     States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
     on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of May 
     26, 1972, entered into in New York on September 26, 1997, by 
     the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about missile defense. It 
is very simple. It simply states that no funds in the act shall be used 
to implement the memorandum of understanding entered into on September 
26, 1997, between the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and 
the Ukraine.
  This is a memorandum of understanding regarding the 1972 ABM Treaty. 
Precisely the same amendment word for word passed this House last year 
easily, 240-188. And so this amendment merely continues that status quo 
in the law and does not change present law in that sense.
  The memorandum of understanding of September 26, 1997, and related 
documentation essentially does two things. First of all, it changes the 
parties to the 1972 ABM Treaty, updates that treaty if you will, by 
supplementing instead of the old Soviet Union, the former Soviet 
Republic that I mentioned.
  The second thing the memorandum and related documents does is it 
really expands that treaty, expands the scope to disallow more theater 
missile systems.
  The Clinton administration has frankly admitted, and this House has 
voted on many occasions, that this is a new treaty and this must be put 
before the United States Senate and ratified by the United States 
Senate. This has never happened. The memorandum has not gone there. It 
has never been ratified.
  Now, I strongly believe we should develop aggressively missile 
defense systems and not renew and expand the old ABM treaty, 
particularly to expand its scope and disallow more theater systems. But 
really, this amendment is far simpler than that and really deals with 
much more of a threshold question. This is not so much a defense issue 
but a constitutional issue.
  The memorandum of understanding has not been put before the United 
States Senate. It has not been ratified by the United States Senate.
  Everyone, including the Clinton administration, agrees that this must 
occur because it is essentially a new treaty. That has not happened.
  So until and unless that happens, we should not spend money enforcing 
that new regime, particularly when it is highly controversial and goes 
to the heart of our missile defense debate, particularly when this 
House has voted not to spend that money in the past, particularly when 
this House and this Congress has voted affirmatively to aggressively 
develop missile defense systems, including theater systems.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. George Miller of 
     California:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), add the 
     following:

                           TITLE--LIMITATION

       Sec.   . Of the amounts made available by this Act, not 
     more than $2,350,000 may be obligated or expended for the 
     Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I 
am offering this evening does nothing more than ensure that the current 
law regarding the funding of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
Commission is being followed. It does so by limiting the U.S. 
contribution to no more than 50 percent of the Tropical Tuna 
Commission, thereby ending the long-standing taxpayer subsidy of 
foreign nations who are members and benefit from the work of this 
commission.
  There are two principal benefits from this amendment. It ensures 
countries pay their fair share for the Tropical Tuna Commission of its 
expenses which they committed to when they signed on to the commission 
in 1997. The law requires that it frees up money for other 
international fishing commissions that are already funded below the 
President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1949 the United States signed onto a convention 
establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This 
commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain 
a healthy population of tuna and other marine species taken from the 
eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.
  Currently 11 nations are members of this commission: Costa Rica, 
Panama, Japan, France, Vanuatu, Nicaragua, Venezuela, El Salvador, 
Equador, Mexico, and the United States.
  The Tropical Tuna Commission is involved in many activities that 
affect all member nations, and there are costs associated with these 
activities and the convention specifies how the commission should be 
funded.
  It says that those countries that harvest more fish pay more. 
Specifically the commission states: ``The proportion of joint expenses 
to be paid by each of the high-contracting parties shall be related to 
the proportion of total catch of the fisheries covered by the 
Convention and utilized by the high-contracting party.''
  This made sense in 1949, and it makes sense today. We paid our share 
then and we still do now. In fact, we pay a good deal more than our 
share. Circumstances have changed and changes must be made in our 
payments.
  The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from 
the eastern Tropical Pacific. In fact, we only catch about 5 percent of 
the tuna from this area. And our average utilization over the last 10 
years has been around 40 percent.
  Despite this, the United States continues to pay the lion's share of 
funding for the Tropical Tuna Commission, as much as 90 percent in 
recent years.
  The taxpayers' subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop, and it 
is time for these other countries to carry their own weight.
  In fact, in 1997, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act 
requires that member countries pay their fair share of the Tropical 
Tuna Commission. And in fact that same agreement has incentives for 
them to do so, and it is written into law that clearly states the 
countries that fail to pay their fair share cannot export their tuna 
into the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, all my amendment does is uphold these requirements of 
the current law. It does not change the 1997 Dolphin Protection Act or 
the international agreements in any way. It simply assumes a critical 
provision of law will be enforced.
  In addition, it has no effect on the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program, funding for observers, or other activities. The 
funding for those programs come from fees on the tuna vessels, not from 
the country contributions. So this in no way impacts the

[[Page 20133]]

International Dolphin Conservation Program.
  Regardless of how we feel about modifying the dolphin-safe label, 
surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting 
the fishing interest of these other countries. This is a fair position. 
That is the position that the Senate just over a week ago on a 
bipartisan vote agreed to 61-35.
  The money saved will still be available to the State Department to 
spend on 12 other international fisheries commissions which we belong 
to and which are funded at $2 million below the President's request in 
this legislation. So let us not undercut a dozen other important 
commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize 
countries that refuse to pay their fair share contrary to U.S. law, 
contrary to the agreement that they entered into on the International 
Dolphin Conservation.
  If they get the benefits of the act, they are supposed to pay their 
fair share. These countries have refused to do so.
  This amendment would still have the United States picking up 50 
percent of the cost of this commission. That will leave the other 10 
countries the need to pick up the other 50 percent even though they 
utilize it far in excess of that amount.
  I think this is simply about equity for the taxpayers. It is about 
upholding the agreements that people have entered into. And I think it 
is an amendment that we should adopt as did the Senate by the 
bipartisan vote of 61-35.
  This amendment does nothing more than ensure that current law 
regarding the funding of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is 
being followed.
  It does so by limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than 50 
percent of the IATTC budget, thereby ending the longstanding taxpayer 
subsidy of foreign nations who are members of, and benefit from the 
work of the Commission.
  There are 2 principal benefits from this amendment:
  (1) it ensures countries pay their fair share of IATTC expenses, 
which they committed to when they signed onto the Commission and as the 
1997 law requires;
  (2) it frees up money for other international fisheries commissions 
that are already funded below the President's request.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1949, the United States signed a convention 
establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). This 
Commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain 
health populations of tuna and other marine species taken in the 
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP).
  Currently 11 nations are members of the commission--Costa Rica, 
Panama, Japan, France, Nicaragua, Vanuatu, Venezuela, El Salvador, 
Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.
  The IATTC is involved in many activities that affect all member 
nations. And there are costs associate with these activities. The 
convention specifies how the Commission should be founded.
  It says that those countries that harvest more fish should pay more. 
Specially the Convention states: ``The proportion of joint expenses to 
be paid by each high Contracting Party shall be related to the 
proportion of the total catch from the fisheries covered by this 
Convention utilized by the High Contracting Party.''
  This made sense in 1949, and it makes sense now. We paid our share 
then, and we still do now. In fact, we now pay a good deal more than 
our share.
  Circumstances have changed and changes must be made to our payments. 
The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from the 
ETP. In fact, we only catch only five percent of the tuna from the ETP. 
And our average utilization over the last 10 years is around 40 
percent. Despite this, the United States continues to pay the lion's 
share of funding for the IATTC--as much as 90 percent in recent years. 
This taxpayer subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop. It is time 
for those other countries to carry their own weight.
  In fact, the 1997 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act 
requires that member counties must pay their fair share of the IATTC 
expenses. And there is no incentive  for them to do that written into 
the law which clearly states that countries that fail to pay their fair 
share cannot export their tuna to the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, all my amendment does is uphold the requirements of 
current law. It does not change the 1997 dolphin protection law or the 
international agreement in any way. It simply assumes a critical 
provision of that law will be enforced. In addition, it has no effect 
on the International Dolphin Conservation program funding for observers 
and other activities. The funding for that program comes from fees on 
tuna vessels, not from country contributions.
  Regardless of how we felt about modifying the ``Dolphin Safe'' label, 
surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting 
the fishing interests of other countries. That is a fair position the 
Senate agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 61-35.
  The money saved will still be available to the State Department to 
spend on more than 12 other international fisheries commissions to 
which we belong which are funded at $2 million below the President's 
request in this bill. So let's not undercut a dozen other important 
commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize 
countries that refuse to pay their fair share, contrary to U.S. law.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Frankly, this is the situation: in 1997, we passed a law saying that 
the ability for these countries to fish in the area which is called the 
eastern Tropical Pacific for tuna and in order for them to market that 
tuna in the United States as dolphin-free tuna or dolphin-safe tuna 
that they would all have to participate in the Inter-American Tropical 
Tuna Commission.
  Unfortunately, they are not carrying their fair share. So what 
happens is the United States, they are using our market. That is the 
only reason this is all here, they are all shipping their tuna into the 
United States. What we are saying is that they ought to be paying their 
fair share.
  Countries like Costa Rica catch about 70 percent of it, and they pay 
nothing. Venezuela catches about 16 percent or uses 16 percent of the 
market. They pay nothing. Ecuador fishes about 26 percent of the fish. 
They pay nothing.
  So what this amendment does is say that the United States should not 
have to pay more than its fair share. But even at that, the bottom line 
is that we would be paying 50 percent of the commission's cost.
  So I mean, this is a no-brainer that the United States has got to 
stop carrying the heavy burden. The advantage for all these fisheries 
is that they can come and sell their product in the United States to 
American consumers, and we ought to require them to pay their fair 
share of the commission expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following:

      Groups Supporting the George Miller of California Amendment:

       The Humane Society of the United States.
       Animal Welfare Institute.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       Friends of Animals.
       Public Citizen.
       Whale Rescue Team.
       Greenpeace Foundation.
       Massachusetts Audubon Society.
       ASPCA.
       Dolphin Connection.
       Society for Animal Protective Legislation.
       Earth Trust.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Brigantine New Jersey Marine Mammal Stranding Center.
       American Oceans Campaign.
       The Fund for Animals.
       Marine Mammal Fund.
       South Carolina Association for Marine Mammal Protection.
       Earth Island Institute.
       Animal Protection Institute.
       American Humane Association.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made mention that Equador 
pays nothing? Is that the country he said? He said they pay nothing?
  $142,000 from Ecuador. Venezuela $67,000. Costa Rica $29,000. 
Significantly smaller countries. But the United States is telling these 
other 10 countries how they have to fish to meet our standards. This is 
an international agreement decided upon by the United States to protect 
the dolphin and the tuna industry.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter 
is

[[Page 20134]]

they pay very little in terms of their participation.
  We are telling them this is what they signed on to, this is an 
agreement they agreed to. They are signatories to this operation. We 
changed it to meet their concerns and so that they can import the tuna 
in this country, and they agreed.
  A contract is a contract. They signed a contract saying this is what 
they agreed they would do. Now they are not doing it. So we end up 
paying 70 or 80 percent of the cost of this commission. It is not much 
more complicated than that.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just 
point out that this is really an equity issue. It is all based on the 
fact that we would not even have a law if it was not for that these 
other countries want to fish for tuna and have to use an international 
law which we have led with so that they can sell their tuna in this 
country. That is where the market is.
  The American consumers are making all of this happen. We are just 
asking that these countries bear their fair share. It is big business. 
It is a lot of money. And they certainly can afford it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) said that the fees from the fishermen will pay for 
the implementation of the dolphin-safe fishing techniques, something to 
that end, the fees of the fishermen pay for the program. That is how I 
interpret it.
  What I want to make a comment on is the fees from the fishermen do 
not cover the funding for the dolphin program. It is only about 50 
percent of the total cost of this program.
  The biological work from the commission comes from the contributions 
from the participating countries.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, strong opposition, Mr. 
Chairman. I do not often oppose the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) on marine resource issues. But I think the gentleman is 
wrong on two counts.
  Number one, if we cut the funding by the amount the gentleman from 
California wants to cut the funding, this will completely cripple the 
program entirely. The participating nations at this point have not 
negotiated the total amount of money that is necessary. That is going 
to happen in October.
  My colleague has made several points about the role of the United 
States in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission versus our actual 
participation in the fishery. I want to make a comment about the 
utilization. Between 30 and 83 percent of the tuna in the last 10 
years, with passage of the International Dolphin Conservation Program, 
comes to the United States. And that number will go up.

                              {time}  1745

  Until the U.S. fleet was effectively driven out by the tuna-dolphin 
regulations, the United States caught the bulk of the tuna fish in the 
eastern tropical Pacific. As soon as this negotiation goes through and 
as soon as the science is done, as long as we do not have a million-
dollar cut in the appropriation, we will do two major things: We will 
save the dolphins, who used to be slaughtered at about 100,000 a year, 
down to below 2,000 a year; and, number two, we will increase the tuna 
fishing industry in California. Also, the vast majority of the costs of 
dolphin protection are borne not by the international agreement but by 
the fishermen themselves. The fishermen now have to buy extra speed 
boats, rafts, divers to assist in the dolphin nets, added cost to carry 
the mandatory observers on board, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 
Contributions to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
effectively fund this management regime.
  My colleague has also argued that the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program Act of 1997 was passed in part to end these heavy 
subsidies. Well, that is what is in the process of happening right now. 
The heavy subsidies are being reduced. No one disagrees that it is 
necessary to eventually bring the U.S. contribution in line with its 
present share of the fishery. The International Dolphin Conservation 
Program Act even contains a sense of Congress that the parties should 
negotiate a more equitable scheme for contributions. However, while 
almost any program might be able to cut costs incrementally over time, 
slashing funding by one-third all at once is a crippling blow to the 
research and conservation efforts of this most important program. 
Participating nations will meet in October to work out a more equitable 
schedule for annual contributions. I fully expect the parties to this 
agreement to meet their responsibilities and bear a more proportionate 
share of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's budget. If that 
does not happen, I would quite happily support a cut to their budget 
next year, a small cut to their budget, but enough to send a strong 
signal. In the meantime, we should meet our commitment, allow the 
negotiations to proceed, and work in good faith to develop a more 
equitable allocation.
  We cannot solve an international problem with a unilateral cut like 
the gentleman from California is proposing here. A vote against the 
amendment of the gentleman from California saves dolphins, 
substantially invigorates the tuna fishing industry in California, goes 
a long way to saving other marine mammals, and goes a long way to 
saving the vast fishery and the marine ecosystem in the eastern 
tropical Pacific.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 16 minutes and that the 
time be equally divided between the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes simply to respond to what the gentleman from Maryland says.
  This amendment has no impact on his concerns. What this amendment 
simply says is that these nations who sought to change the law, who 
sought to change the access to the American market, who signed an 
agreement to do so, that they keep their word, that the taxpayers of 
this country get the benefit of that.
  We have been funding over 90 percent of this. We have not taken 
anywhere near that amount of tuna over the last 10 years. All of those 
things that the fishers have to do now in terms of speed boats and 
monitors, all the rest of that is what they agreed to do because that 
is what they said they would do in order to get access to the American 
market. That is why they signed the agreement. That is why you changed 
the label. That is why we changed the law, so that they could do this. 
Clearly that is a very small expenditure compared to finally having, 
after many years, access to the American consumer market. That is the 
deal.
  Yes, they will start negotiating. We all know how the international 
bodies negotiate. They will pick out a lovely city somewhere in the 
world, they will go there month after month after month after month and 
3 or 4 years from now, because this is about negotiating the entire 
treaty, they will come back to us. In that time the American consumers 
are going to be out 6, 8, $10 million. That could be used to shore up 
the other international fisheries commissions that are not properly 
funded under this legislation or in request with what the President has 
sought for those.
  This is not about dolphin safety. All of the things to protect the 
dolphin are in place under the agreements. This is about the 
enforcement. One of the conditions to participating in the program is 
that you meet your commitments under the law in terms of your financial 
responsibility. These countries have chosen not to do that. Once again, 
the good old United States comes in

[[Page 20135]]

and picks up the fall. You have 10 countries that would have to whack 
up half of the budget, yet they are harvesting 70, 80 percent of all 
the tuna. This is just a matter about equity for the United States 
taxpayers. It is that simple.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, when my legislative staff talked to me 
about this amendment, they pointed out that my friend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) was offering the amendment. They 
also pointed out that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was 
opposing the amendment and they said, ``Where do you stand?'' I gave 
the typical political answer. I said, ``I stand with my friends.'' But 
you cannot get away with that. You have got to look at this. I have 
looked at it very carefully. I oppose the amendment.
  This, as I see it, is a battle of ``might happens.'' As the State 
Department points out, this amendment is unnecessary, because they are 
working on renegotiating a more favorable U.S. allocation. It is also 
counterproductive. Why is that? Because it might jeopardize the U.S. 
position on other conservation issues. Since the State Department folks 
are the ones who are actually sitting at the table for these 
negotiations, I tend to feel, and I agree with the gentleman from 
Maryland, that we should take these ``might happens'' a little more 
seriously.
  According to a lot of folks who participate in these discussions, 
World Wildlife Fund is a good example, the humane groups and the Earth 
Island Institute, they do not participate in this process. I look at 
who is supporting it and who is opposing it. When I look at the 
opposition to the amendment, I see the administration, the Center for 
Marine Conservation, the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the U.S. 
State Department, the U.S. tuna fishing industry. That is an eclectic 
and diverse group. I actually think this may cause us to violate treaty 
obligations. That really concerns me.
  I am mindful of the fact that this amendment was considered in the 
committee and it was rejected. I am mindful of the fact that what we 
did in the last Congress, the 105th Congress, and I think this would 
undermine the tuna-dolphin protection legislation which we passed by an 
overwhelming majority in the last Congress.
  For all of those reasons and more that I do not have the time to 
cover, I stand with my friend against a friend. I oppose the amendment 
and urge its defeat.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I just have a closing comment. We passed 
a law directing that the parties negotiate the terms of the agreement 
so that all nations pay their fair share. All nations will pay their 
fair share. That process is continuing. There will be a meeting of the 
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in October. It is the United 
States that wants to ensure, with its negotiating parties, that this 
agreement does not fall apart, that more dolphins are not killed. If 
this agreement falls apart, not only will you have more dolphins 
killed, but you will be catching immature tuna fish in a manner in 
which it will play out. You will kill more sea turtles. You will kill 
more sea lions.
  If $1 million is cut from the budget of the Inter-American Tropical 
Tuna Commission, not enough biological work will be done, not enough 
money will be out there buying the kinds of equipment that will be 
necessary to ensure the success of this program. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Those are all interesting arguments from my colleague from Maryland. 
They are just not factual. It is just not the situation as it exists. 
This is not an agreement to work out payment in the future. This is the 
treaty. This is what they agreed to:
  ``The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each high 
contracting party shall be related to the proportion of the total catch 
of the fisheries covered by the covenant.''
  That is not what they have agreed to do. They suggest here, well, the 
dolphin agreement will fall apart. If it falls apart, they lose their 
access to the American market. They have been trying for a decade to 
pry that market open. It is now there based upon this agreement. You 
say they are going to start meeting in October to negotiate these. 
Every day they do not negotiate them they win because Uncle Sam is 
picking up the tab. So there is no urgency in this. There is no urgency 
in this.
  Why do you not send them a message that we are more than willing to 
pay our fair share and even then some, but they have to contribute 
something to this effort? They ought to participate in this. They are 
getting the benefit. I mean, we argued here for a couple of hours about 
our unwillingness to pay a debt owed to the United Nations and here we 
are willing to pay money we do not even owe, that is not even called 
for under the treaty. This is turning Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. What 
is going on here? People signed an agreement, they signed a covenant, 
they signed a treaty, they signed a contract, they say this is what we 
are willing to do to have access to the American market and then they 
do not do it.
  And so what happens? You go out and you pass the hat among the 
American taxpayers, we cough up a few million dollars and the 
bureaucrats and the diplomats just continue on about their way. This 
has nothing to do with the safety of the dolphin. They have agreed to 
fish in a dolphin-safe fashion under the guidelines that the gentleman 
promoted. We had that fight. They also agreed to the terms and 
conditions of this treaty. If they fish differently, if they start 
killing dolphins, then they lose the American market, and we know what 
that means to them. Because that is the biggest financial plum they 
possibly have.
  Why do we keep selling the American market so cheap? This is not a 
lot of money but it is an important principle, it is a very important 
principle, that people should pay their fair share. Again, we go back 
to the debate earlier about who is paying their fair share and who is 
paying too much at the United Nations. Well, this is just a small 
commission. But if the other countries do not pay their fair share, we 
pay more here and then other international fisheries commissions do not 
get the allotment that is necessary to them to do the kinds of 
protective programs that you say you want.
  That is why this amendment is supported by the Humane Society, by the 
Defenders of Wildlife, by the Friends of the Earth, the American Humane 
Association, the Fund for Animals, because they recognize the need to 
get these countries to pay their share as they agreed to do. That is 
the nature of contracts, that is the nature of treaties, that is the 
nature of binding agreements. What do we have? Do we have an invisible 
clause that is known only to the diplomats, only to the negotiators 
that says in the event you decide not to pay, the U.S. treasury will 
pick up the difference? I do not think so. I do not think that is the 
way it should be, but that is the way it has been on this commission 
since 1949. We have been shoveling the money to this commission and 
these countries have been going along for the ride. Now we have 
provided a very, very substantial benefit and access to the American 
markets and we are not requiring that they pay their fair share.
  Remember, under this amendment, we are picking up 50 percent of the 
cost. We are harvesting 5 percent of the tuna. So I am giving them the 
benefit of the doubt that they are small and they are poor and they are 
a lot of things. But this is 50 percent of the cost.
  Do your taxpayer a favor tonight. Support this amendment, support it 
in the same manner that it was supported in the United States Senate 
and, that is, on an overwhelming 2-to-1 vote on a bipartisan basis, 
recognizing the need to enforce the agreement as it is written, as it 
was agreed to and the need to protect the taxpayer.
  We talk a lot in these international agreements about mission creep. 
Well,

[[Page 20136]]

this is sort of cost creep. The budget keeps going up, they keep 
agreeing to it, and we just keep laying off a little bit more on the 
American taxpayer. Let us stop the cost creep. Let us stop the 
unfairness creep, if you will, and let us go with the guidelines in the 
treaty. As I say, we will continue to pick up 50 percent. They can then 
negotiate and they can negotiate whatever terms they want, but the fact 
of the matter is, we will not be sitting around waiting for them to do 
that and continuing to dip into the U.S. Treasury on behalf of these 
countries that have just decided they are simply not going to pay in 
spite of the fact that this Congress in a dramatic move opened up the 
best market there is for this tuna and the least expensive market there 
is for them to get this tuna to market.

                              {time}  1800

  So when we talk about the expenditures that they might have, we have 
done them a tremendous favor. I hope it will all work out, and they 
ought not to take advantage. They ought not to take advantage of our 
goodwill, they ought not to take advantage of our taxpayers, they ought 
not take advantage of our patience in terms of complying with this 
agreement that provided them with such incredible, incredible benefits.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
recognized for the balance of his time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, for 2 years the gentleman from 
California, tried everything that he could to kill the tuna-dolphin 
bill along with the gentlewoman in the other body from California. We 
thought that was wrong, and we still do. For the gentleman to claim 
that this is a fiscal responsibility issue is laughable. They have done 
everything that they can to kill this, and it is bipartisan opposition 
they face.
  In the Senate I talked to the Senators. They said the B-2 should have 
such stealth. They came in, they did not know this killed the tuna-
dolphin bill. We had not had a chance to gear up for the letters, and 
no wonder it passed. They did not know that it was going to hurt the 
tuna-dolphin bill which they voted for overwhelmingly I would say, Mr. 
Chairman, the President, the Vice President, the State Department, 
bipartisan Congress, Center for Marine Conservation, Green Peace, 
Scripps Institute of Oceanography and 11 other nations, they said build 
it and they will come. Eleven other nations, build it and save the 
dolphins, save all marine mammals, and 11 nations will come. And they 
did come.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say: ``Shoeless George Miller, tell me it is 
not so. Please, Shoeless George Miller, tell me it is not so, that you 
would offer this anti-environment amendment. Tell me, please, George 
Miller, that one of the groups that oppose this was a group that wanted 
in California to stop trout and bass fishing because it hurt the fish.
  Tell me it ain't so, shoeless George Miller. Tell me that the other 
group that opposes this of all the environmental groups is the group 
that the unibomber supported. They spike trees to kill loggers. Tell me 
it ain't so, Mr. George Miller. Tell me it ain't so.''
  For them to say that this is a fiscal issue is just wrong.
  Let me give my colleagues some letters. Clinton-Gore administration 
State Department: ``The amendment would seriously jeopardize important 
programs being undertaken by the IATCC.'' The President highlighted 
this. He had a Rose Garden signature, and the gentleman is trying to 
kill that. He tried to kill it for 2 years. This is his way to do it 
and claim fiscal responsibility.
  The Center for Marine Conservation, Green Peace: ``It will result in 
the death of dolphins, sea turtles, sharks and other bill fish.''
  Here is the Director of World Wildlife Fund: ``IDCP program works. 
Consequently it should not be the target of Mr. Miller's, quote, `anti-
environment action.' ''
  We hear all the time that we support things for special interest 
groups. Well, the groups we have are about 90 percent of the 
environmental groups, and we have got two groups, two special 
interests, that want to kill this bill. Do not let that happen. This is 
one of our most shining moments working together in a bipartisan way.
  Here is the vote: overwhelming here in the House. Here it is right 
here. Do not throw that away. We always talk about when we can work 
together as a body, when we can support each other, when we can work on 
the environment together. This is one of those shining moments that the 
House did come together, the Senate did come together, the President 
signed it, the Vice President; he supports our position and against 
this amendment.
  Please come back and help us.
  We have our sports fishermen. This is tied to Mexico as well. Our 
sports fishermen work with Secretary of Mexico Carlos Comacho. Mexico 
has been part of this for 4 months, and guess what? They are already 
kicking in a share of the payment.
  The act itself says that all the payments will be addressed, and they 
are under that auspices as we speak.
  So this is an amendment with an attempt to kill the tuna-dolphin bill 
which the gentleman from California tried to kill for 2 years. Now he 
has that right. He felt it was wrong. But the overwhelming majority of 
this body, the other body, and all the other environmental 
organizations disagree with my friend from California.
  We do not pay too much. I would ask my colleagues not to turn their 
backs on a program that has saved over 97,000 dolphins, 97,000, each 
year. The group that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
is espousing controls the tuna-dolphin label. They stand to lose 
millions of dollars. Do we allow a group, a special interest group, to 
pocket money at the expense of the environment? And that is why the 
letter of this anti-environment amendment.
  I would ask my colleagues, reject the Miller amendment. Stand for the 
bipartisan tuna-dolphin bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the George 
Miller of California amendment which reduces U.S. taxpayer subsidy for 
foreign tuna fishermen.
  The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 1997 allows 
previously embargoed countries to export their tuna to the United 
States. In exchange for opening our markets, Congress required 
countries meet the legal and financial obligations of membership in the 
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which regulates tuna 
fishing and the International Dolphin Conservation program. These 
obligations include funding the IATTC.
  The operating expenses of the IATTC are to be divided between member 
countries based on the proportion of the amount of tuna which each 
nation harvests from the fisheries.
  The key word is ``proportion.'' The numbers speak for themselves. 
Historically, the United States has paid for 75% of the IATTC's 
operating expenses, but the U.S. share of the tuna catch is less than 
40%. Should American taxpayers subsidize foreign fishing fleets by 
paying almost double our contribution? The State Department seems to 
think so.
  It has proposed using taxpayer money to pay for ``lapses'' in the 
contribution for the IATTC. In other words, the State Department wants 
the American taxpayer to pay almost ``double'' our share rather than 
impose stipulations on those members who have delinquent financial 
obligations.
  The George Miller of California amendment will reduce the U.S. 
financial contribution by $1 million, meaning that the U.S. will still 
be paying for 50% of the IATTC's annual budget. Since contributions by 
other countries have been based in the large part on the amount paid by 
the United States, supporting this amendment would force other fishing 
nations to begin paying their fair share. The Miller amendment does not 
undermine the International Dolphin Conservation program, particularly 
the observer program, which is funded by the tuna vessels and not by 
country contributions.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past nine years, American taxpayers have paid 
almost $15 million above our obligation under the Convention. Isn't it 
time that those nations benefitting from the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program Act of 1997 and profiting from our open markets, 
meet their financial obligations to the IATTC?
  I urge my colleagues to support the George Miller of California 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).

[[Page 20137]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) will be postponed.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2670) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution.

                          ____________________