[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12107-12140]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 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. 
4690.

                              {time}  0904


                     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. 4690) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 
22, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 35, 
line 8, through page 35, line 14.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment 
to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the 
Congressional Record on or before June 22, 2000, which may be offered 
only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, shall 
be considered read, shall not be subject to amendment (except pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate), and shall not be subject to a 
demand for a division of the question.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) to section 110, which shall be debatable only for 40 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Page 37, line 11, after the period, insert the following:

     The preceding sentence shall not apply to litigation filed 
     before January 1, 2000, that has received funding under 
     section 109 of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 
22, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member 
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan); and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). This is the 
third time this week we have offered an amendment to an appropriations 
bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice 
Department to continue their tobacco lawsuit. The first time we offered 
our amendment to the VA-HUD bill, we lost on a close vote of 197-207. 
The second time we offered the amendment, we reached an agreement with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman, and 
prevailed on a voice vote. I thought that this issue had been resolved. 
I thought the House had determined that the veterans and America's 
taxpayers deserved their day in court. The Federal lawsuit would be 
decided by a judge and a jury in a court based on the merits of the 
case, not by Congress through legislative riders.
  Unfortunately, I was wrong. The bill before us today, the Commerce-
State-Justice appropriations bill, would undo the agreement we reached 
on Tuesday. Once again, it contains a rider that would defund the 
Federal tobacco lawsuit.
  During the debate over the past few days, we have learned several 
things. First, we have learned that stopping the Federal lawsuit is 
unfair to veterans. In 1998, Congress made a promise to veterans when 
we took the funds that were directed at veterans for cigarette-related 
disabilities and used it for highways. Congress said, We'll go to

[[Page 12108]]

the courts and get money from the tobacco companies. If we adopt the 
language in this bill without our amendment, we will be going back on 
this promise. This is simply wrong.
  That is why our amendment is strongly supported by the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American 
Veterans, and AMVETS. We have also learned that defunding the Federal 
lawsuit is unfair to America's seniors. Each year Medicare spends $20 
billion treating tobacco-related illnesses. The Federal lawsuit could 
potentially recover these costs, extending the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund for years. That is why our amendment is strongly supported 
by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and 
other seniors' organizations.
  In effect, we have a simple choice. We can stand with an industry 
that has lied to the American people for decades, or we can stand with 
our Nation's veterans and our senior citizens. I ask my colleagues to 
think about what we are going to do. We are about to take the 
unprecedented action of stopping the judicial process in the middle of 
a pending case. And we are about to take this action for an industry 
that is the least deserving industry in America, for an industry that 
has targeted our children, for an industry that manipulated nicotine to 
keep smokers addicted, for an industry that has deceived and lied to 
the public for decades.
  Our amendment is drawn very narrowly. It does not allow the Justice 
Department to seek funding from other agencies to sue the gun industry, 
the gambling industry, or any other industry. All our amendment says is 
that this new policy should not be applied retroactively to halt 
pending litigation that commenced in reliance on the current law. In 
effect, the amendment is nothing more than a savings clause that would 
allow the tobacco suit to continue. Our amendment raises exactly the 
same issue we debated on Monday and decided on Tuesday. Today, as we 
did on Tuesday, we should stand with our veterans and our seniors, not 
the tobacco companies.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. ROGERS. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what this argument is about today is unlike what has 
been argued before in this body on this matter. This debate is about 
what was the intent of the Congress in 1995 when we passed the act in 
this bill that allowed the Department of Justice to be reimbursed from 
other agencies for extraordinary expensive cases.
  What was on the table at that time was a lawsuit by a company against 
the Navy when the Navy canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. It was a 
multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Justice came to us and said, Would you 
please put in your bill a provision that allows the Navy to reimburse 
Justice for representing it in this massive lawsuit against the 
government.
  We said, Okay, we'll do that. Never in anyone's wildest imagination 
on the floor of this body was it anticipated that that statute would be 
used by the Government to initiate lawsuits, to sue people willy-nilly. 
Why? Because the Justice Department has a Civil Rights Division of some 
1,039 lawyers with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend in filing 
lawsuits. Why would they need this kind of money to file a lawsuit?
  No, the Congress intended when we passed that statute to enable the 
Justice Department to be able to represent the Government when it was 
sued, not when it was the suer. Now the Government has filed three of 
these lawsuits using this statute contrary to the intent of the 
Congress, thumbing its nose at the Congress and saying, We will decide 
how we're going to spend the money you gave us from the taxpayers. We 
don't care what you thought when you passed the statute. That is the 
attitude of the Justice Department.
  Since the section was enacted, so-called 109, they have received 
roughly $324 million in reimbursements, almost all of which has been 
for just two massive lawsuits, the A-12 airplane case I mentioned, and 
the Winstar Savings and Loan cases where Justice was defending the 
Government against $33 billion in claims. Clearly, section 109 is an 
important tool to protect the Government and the taxpayer and should 
stay on the books. Without it, Justice would not have been able to 
mount credible defenses in critical cases and the Government could have 
suffered billions of dollars in losses.
  What we do in the bill is clarify Congressional intent. We say, Look, 
what we meant when we gave you that authority in 1995 was to defend the 
Government against these massive claims, not to initiate lawsuits. And 
the bill does ensure that the money would be used for defensive 
litigation which was the justification provided by the Justice 
Department when it sought from us this special authority and the 
understanding of Congress when we provided that authority. It is the 
reasonable approach, and it is the right thing to do. It ensures that 
funding provided for other programs in this and other appropriations 
bills are not diverted in the future for proactive lawsuits as have 
been done to the tune of over $8 million so far.
  Nothing in this bill restricts or prevents Justice from continuing 
any lawsuit, ongoing or prospective. Let them do what they will. We 
give them hundreds of millions of dollars with 1,034 lawyers in the 
Civil Rights Division to pursue civil actions. Nothing in the bill 
would restrict or prevent that.

                              {time}  0915

  This bill contains in fact $147 million to pay for those huge numbers 
of lawyers within the Civil Division to carry out affirmative cases, as 
the government sees fit.
  The Waxman amendment would modify this bill, to allow the government 
to continue raiding the budgets of other agencies for four proactive 
cases that were filed about Justice just before this year and which are 
being paid through the inappropriate use of section 109 authority.
  It would prohibit the use of section 109 for proactive cases filed 
after the beginning of the year.
  In so doing, the Waxman amendment by itself acknowledges that, in 
fact, section 109 is for defensive purposes only. But the gentleman 
says we acknowledge that, but give us a break this time for all cases 
filed before the beginning of the year, the statute is either for 
defensive purposes or it is not. If it is for defensive purposes, it 
acknowledges the intent of the Congress in 1995 that it was for 
defensive purposes.
  If it was for defensive purposes then, the government was wrong to 
use these funds to file any lawsuits since 1995, so I reject out of 
hand the argument that this statute ought to be modified so that we 
could protect and cover the rear ends of those at Justice that made the 
decision that was contrary to the intent of Congress, wrong and should 
not be rewarded, as this amendment would do by giving them an excuse, 
giving them an out and saying yes, it is for defensive purposes, but we 
are going to forgive you this time. Sorry, sorry about that. The law is 
the law. This was for defensive purposes, the Justice Department has 
violated it, and the gentleman wants to reward them on this floor, and 
I suggest that we shall not do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, support for continuing the tobacco lawsuit should not 
be a partisan issue, and this amendment has bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the great bipartisan 
leaders in this House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding the time 
to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, because 
I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that

[[Page 12109]]

the lawsuit against tobacco must be continued. Most of us have been to 
Gettysburg and have walked those hallowed fields of that place, and I 
often marvel that so many are willing to give their lives for a cause 
that they believe in. What makes Gettysburg even more important it was 
truly the turning point of the Civil War and began the tough road to 
reunification of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a turning point of another war, 
and that is the war against youth smoking. For decades, the tobacco 
companies have lied to us here in Congress, lied to the people of this 
great land and continually targeted the American children. There surely 
must be accountability for these actions.
  Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are naturally wary of 
government lawsuits and in the vast majority of the cases, I agree with 
them; however, I also know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
were properly incensed when the definition of the words like ``is'' 
were twisted to avoid responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
that the tobacco companies have consistently done the same word 
manipulation for decades and have consistently avoided responsibility.
  I believe that the time has come to demand responsibility, and this 
is why I am supporting this amendment. I also know that many of my 
colleagues are concerned over the potential for future abuse of this 
authority, including the possibility that this or another 
administration may follow the advice of gun control extremists and 
pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry. To those who share my 
concern on that issue, I implore them to read this amendment, it very 
clearly prohibits any future use of section 109 authority for such 
purposes.
  The amendment allows only one exemption, the tobacco lawsuit. This 
amendment assures that the executive branch cannot file any lawsuits 
that were not already active and receiving section 109 funds before the 
start of this year. There is only one lawsuit that fits that 
description, the tobacco lawsuit and all other lawsuits are prohibited.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
meritorious amendment. It is important to the health of our children 
and the future health of our grandchildren.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to 
this bill and I absolutely recognize my friends' right to take their 
position, but let me focus on the facts for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I 
rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  This amendment jeopardizes the appropriations authority granted to 
Congress by the Constitution, and it will set a precedent that the 
administration, the President will determine spending instead of the 
Congress. I ask my colleagues to consider the precedent that this 
amendment will set with respect to our authority in Congress to 
determine the spending levels for our country.
  Attorney General Reno herself testified before the Senate that the 
Federal Government did not have the authority to bring the very lawsuit 
that my colleagues are advocating today. The law says the suit cannot 
be won, the money will be wasted, money that should be spent on 
veterans health care.
  In 1997, again, I say Ms. Reno testified that there was no legal 
basis to recover. The States have the authority and have a recovery of 
$246 billion that will be jeopardized by this amendment.
  The White House has failed to enact its desired 55 cent per pack 
Federal cigarette tax increase. The Attorney General shamelessly files 
the very same suit she explicitly admitted was groundless. This is 
ridiculous. Tobacco manufacturers never dupe the Federal Government.
  Washington has known for decades that smoking is dangerous. Since 
1964, every pack sold in the United States has carried a mandated label 
warning of the risk of smoking. Nobody wants people to be harmed by 
smoking, especially no one wants children smoking, nor can Washington 
claim that it somehow acquired individual smokers right to sue.
  In 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected on the grounds 
that veterans assumed risk of smoking, a claim allegedly by former 
members of the Armed Forces in Washington freely distributed cigarettes 
10 years after placing warning labels on the packages.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1947 a law was granted saying the Supreme Court in 
the United States may sue third parties to recoup health care costs but 
this is about insurance companies saving veterans health care money.
  To sum up, history and legal precedent do not support this amendment. 
The law and history say we will lose, save this money for health care, 
for veterans and any other group supported by this Congress. Strongly 
oppose the Waxman amendment on legal ground.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations support our amendment, 
because they want that money to be brought back into veterans health 
care.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans) one of the great champions on behalf of veterans in this 
institution, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this week the House passed an amendment to the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill that enables the Department of Justice to pursue 
its pending litigation against the tobacco industry. This lawsuit seeks 
to recover billions of dollars spent by the VA and other Federal 
agencies to treat tobacco-related illnesses.
  A rider in this appropriations bill which would block the Justice 
Department from accepting these funds is a mirror image of the VA-HUD 
rider. The amendment I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) and my other colleagues in supporting today simply allows the 
wheels of justice to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership 
of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming evidence 
that tobacco-related illnesses are linked to nicotine addiction 
developed during the military service, the Republican leadership of the 
House effectively denied veterans the opportunity to seek legitimate 
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Instead, this House passed a sense of Congress Resolution that the 
Attorney General and I quoted ``should take all steps necessary to 
recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to the costs which 
have been incurred by the VA for treatment of tobacco-related illness 
of veterans.''
  Mr. Chairman, it seems our leadership would seek to walk away from 
this commitment strangling even the hope of a fair settlement from the 
big tobacco companies for the VA medical care system. Passing this 
appropriation with the proposed rider will prevent Justice from using 
funds in pursuit of this lawsuit would be nothing less than shameful.
  If this House is not totally beholden to the tobacco industry, it 
would adopt this amendment. It will enable legal proceedings to go 
forward, and it will allow the outcome of lawsuits to be properly 
determined in court, not here on the floor of the House.
  Earlier this week, an open letter was distributed to Members of 
Congress by four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Disabled 
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars of the United States.
  Veterans have made it clear that they support tobacco litigation that 
could allow a fair settlement to support VA's treatment of thousands of 
veterans' tobacco-related illnesses. That is why the veterans 
organizations who coauthor the independent budget have strongly 
endorsed our amendment.
  Let us keep our promise to America's veterans and let this lawsuit 
move forward on its own merit. In the name of

[[Page 12110]]

justice, please support the Waxman-Evans amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tobacco lawsuit is 
bad public policy and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The case is not 
about the law, but about the Federal Government extorting money from an 
industry that it does not like. Which industry will be the next victim 
of this punitive action?
  The tobacco industry, in accordance with the terms of its 1998 
settlement with the States, has changed its marketing, advertising, and 
business practices. The industry is also paying the States billions of 
dollars. Now the Justice Department wants a share of this revenue 
stream for the Federal Government and is willing to further sidestep to 
try to get it.
  The Justice Department needs to stop stealing veterans health care 
funds to pay for its baseless lawsuit. This suit claims the Federal 
Government and the public were deceived about the health risks of 
tobacco products. The same Federal Government that claims it was 
deceived has required health warnings on tobacco products since the 
1960s.
  The Surgeon General's 1964 report details the risks of tobacco use. 
The American people are not as clueless as this lawsuit claims, people 
know the health risks associated with use of tobacco products. It is 
absurd to claim ignorance on this point.
  Adult consumers have the right to make risk judgments and choose the 
legal products they use. They also need to take personal responsibility 
for those choices. No Federal law gives the government authority to 
collect Medicare funds as proposed in this lawsuit.
  Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, Attorney General Reno testified to the 
Senate that no Federal cause of action existed for Medicare and 
Medicaid claims; suddenly she has changed her tune under pressure from 
the White House. The Justice Department on the same day it announced 
the civil lawsuit ended its 5-year investigation of the tobacco 
industry without making any criminal charges.
  Last year the Congressional Research Service concluded that with a 
full accounting of costs of lifetime government-funded health care and 
benefits for tobacco users and tobacco excise taxes, the Federal 
Government actually nets $35 billion per year.
  There are not costs for a Federal Government to recover. It is 
already making money off of tobacco use and this administration only 
wants more.
  The absurdity of this legislation by litigation aside, one issue 
should be clear to everyone today, veterans health benefits are not 
intended to pay trial lawyers in a politically motivated lawsuit. This 
is not a rider. This is not special treatment. This is Congress 
carrying out its role in appropriating how tax dollars are to be spent.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a respected physician Member of the House, one of 
the great leaders on public health issues.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee; but we disagree. 
As a physician on this Floor, I have been asked many medical questions 
related to diseases caused by tobacco that is affecting members and 
their families.
  Tobacco is an addicting substance that causes lethal disease. It 
certainly has not spared our colleagues or their families. Big tobacco 
is trying to stymie a Federal lawsuit that seeks to recover costs of 
treatment of the tobacco-related diseases that the Federal taxpayers 
have subsidized. This includes the care of Members of Congress and 
their families, as well as other Federal employees, veterans, and 
Medicare beneficiaries.

                              {time}  0930

  The States recover damages against big tobacco based on their share 
of Medicaid. The Federal Government should too. The VA spends $4 
billion annually on treatment of tobacco-related illness. Medicare 
spends $20.5 billion per year on tobacco-relayed illnesses.
  Big tobacco has known about the addictive lethal consequences of 
tobacco for a long time. Their CEOs committed perjury in testimony 
before Congress. Did those CEOs get punished for lying under oath? We 
did not even give them a slap on the wrist, and their deceitful lives 
have cost lives.
  The Waxman-Hansen amendment is supported by veterans groups, senior 
organizations, and practically all the public health groups.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one thing: Are you for big tobacco, 
or are you for the American taxpayer who has paid the bill for big 
tobacco too long?
  Big tobacco has spread a lot of money around Capitol Hill to try to 
get Congress to stop the Department of Justice lawsuit. Well, here is 
your chance to be with the AMVETS, with the VFW, with all of these 
health groups, and, most importantly, with the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember 
all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was 
in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money 
because of those many things that everybody requested that she 
investigate but she never has.
  Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to 
recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the 
sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds 
have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited 
from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, 
such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being 
complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my 
understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another.
  So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute 
waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. 
Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some 
of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need 
more money?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a Member who is noted for his interest in fiscal 
responsibility and has a unique perspective on the promise made to the 
veterans a couple of years ago in the transportation bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for 
reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of 
constitutionality.
  The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the 
Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco 
when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for 
the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought 
to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco 
industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans 
organizations and the health organizations support this.
  We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment 
on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up 
administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative 
expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for 
the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, 
that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of 
that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that 
the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it 
would be a mistake to do that.

[[Page 12111]]

  Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is 
unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch 
to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the 
Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is 
the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers.
  The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise 
decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover 
these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this 
point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional.
  Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and 
the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join 
together and pass the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice 
Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the 
tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess 
that the command will be ``fire when ready.''
  The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent 
whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with 
each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more 
determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco.
  Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I 
had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; 
and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars 
in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated.
  The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently 
regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If 
we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco 
industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, 
and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars 
directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we 
will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start 
hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the 
tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the 
consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating 
from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is 
going to come back to haunt us.
  I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because 
I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go 
about this.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman 
amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for 
their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they 
did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its 
suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in 
needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, 
considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from 
tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco 
industry denies are as a result of cigarettes.
  Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the 
American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is 
who supports it.
  Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big 
tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their 
hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. 
That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The 
group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group 
of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old 
kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the 
damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their 
lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the 
tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the 
Waxman amendment today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to note the contribution that the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut has made as a leader on this issue in the 
Committee on Appropriations and commend her for her statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), who has been so involved in public health issues.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some 
individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before 
people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have 
nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit?
  Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco 
companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at 
our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become 
addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, 
while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the 
taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care.
  Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to 
investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman 
amendment. Our children's lives depend on it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has been very 
involved in health issues and who before coming to the Congress was in 
the nursing profession.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen 
amendment. I am outraged that the bill before us today would, in 
effect, halt the Justice Department's action to hold tobacco companies 
accountable. This rider would undo an agreement made just 2 days ago 
here on the floor of this House. That agreement would allow the 
Veterans Department to support DOJ's litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, this rider would have the effect of giving the tobacco 
companies immunity. It gives them a free pass by hamstringing Justice's 
ability to go after them in the courts. Remember, the tobacco industry 
produces an addictive product that, when used as directed and intended, 
contributes to the death of 300,000 to 400,000 people a year, injuring 
hundreds of thousands more.
  This industry has systematically attempted to lure children to start 
smoking and lied about it for years. It has manipulated the levels of 
nicotine to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes and lied about it 
for years.
  Tobacco companies deserve no special treatment. They deserve to be 
held accountable, and that is what passing the Waxman-Hansen amendment 
would allow, simple justice. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining and who has the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), another physician in the House of 
Representatives.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as a family doctor and a Marine veteran, I 
have to ask myself now, why are the tobacco companies and their allies 
in Congress fighting this amendment, fighting this lawsuit in this way. 
Number one, they know the health costs that their product has caused, 
and those of us that have been in medicine

[[Page 12112]]

have seen the lung cancer and the heart disease and the sexual 
impotence and all of those other problems; and we have seen those 
health costs. The tobacco companies know they lied to this Congress and 
lied to the American people about the effects of their product and the 
addictive quality. Finally, the tobacco companies know they targeted 
our men in uniform, those of us who used to open the C-rations and get 
the packs of cigarettes in there; we know we were targeted as we look 
back in time.
  That information would come out in this lawsuit, how they preyed on 
our young men, 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 years old, addicted them to this 
product, at a time when we were asking them to go into combat for their 
country in World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. That is 
what this lawsuit is about, and they know what it is about. They do not 
want to have to defend in front of a jury, having targeted those young 
men.
  Support the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), one of the leaders of the House of 
Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations 
to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that 
there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet 
the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous 
rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if 
this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is 
enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation 
in the tobacco suits.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 
billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many 
diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a 
minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children 
smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out 
of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related 
causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products 
to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a 
result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of 
health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be 
held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, 
and I urge our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/
Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of 
Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to 
recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco 
has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the 
rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into 
law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.''
  This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect 
taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to 
protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to 
escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused.
  Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United 
States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking 
related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart 
disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, 
mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice 
the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, 
drugs, and suicide combined.
  Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical 
and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are 
products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. 
Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can 
also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and 
reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent.
  Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, 
another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three 
of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The 
market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to 
young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result 
of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health 
care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should 
be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit 
seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to 
children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices.
  Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 
billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare 
program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; 
the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense 
pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million.
  In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program 
nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 
billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care 
total approximately $90 billion each year.
  Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be 
deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, 
these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be 
strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to 
do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has made the point 
very clearly that this is not about other lawsuits, it is about the 
tobacco lawsuit alone. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and others who, from a medical 
perspective, have told us how important it is to pursue recovery for 
health care services. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has 
pointed out that for the veterans, we made a promise to them, we should 
not betray them. We should keep that promise to reach out and get funds 
for veterans health care. This lawsuit against tobacco should be 
permitted to proceed. We should not defund it through a rider on an 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what we have heard, this amendment and this 
debate is not about whether one likes or believes in smoking, or 
whether it is good or bad for us. That is not the issue here. The issue 
is not whether this lawsuit has merits or not. That is what we have 
heard here, arguing the merits or demerits of the lawsuit. It has 
nothing to do with that.
  The question here is whether or not the Justice Department violated 
the law itself in filing the lawsuit.
  Last year, for the first time that I have ever recalled, Justice 
asked the Congress for money to file a specific lawsuit. The Congress 
said no; the money was denied. Justice then secretly went to three 
agencies and said, give us the money to file this lawsuit. They said, 
wait a minute, where is your authority for that? They said, well, look 
at section 109 of the 1995 State Commerce-Justice bill where it says 
that agencies can reimburse the Justice Department for representing 
them in court, and they dragged the money out of those agencies and 
filed this lawsuit.
  Well, that statute that they are talking about is the crux of what we 
are talking about here today. That statute merely says that the 
Government can be represented in court when it is sued. That was the 
intent of the Congress; no to be the suer. No one told the Congress 
that they had done this. We had to find it out on our own, and we did.
  So the Department of Justice, the place supposedly where the Nation's 
morals are protected, the place where moral authority resides in this 
government, if anywhere, itself is the one that is thwarting the will 
of the Congress; that is, twisting words for its own purposes, that is 
clearly violating the intent of the Congress in passing the act in the 
first place.

[[Page 12113]]

  Why was it passed in the first place? The Government was sued, a huge 
multibillion dollar suit by the contractor for the Navy Department when 
we canceled the A-12 aircraft contract. In 1995, Justice says, please, 
Congress, help us. Allow the Defense Department to pay us back for 
representing them in defending this lawsuit, and we said, we think that 
is a legitimate purpose, and we wrote it into our bill. That is the 
statute they are trying to use. Mr. Chairman, we all know, my 
colleagues know that that statute is for defending the Government, not 
suing, willy-nilly. Why? Because we provided in this bill $147 million 
for them to bring lawsuits; 1,034 lawyers we hire there to file 
lawsuits. We are paying those lawyers to file lawsuits. This statute is 
for defending the Government, not suing. And yet, they would have us 
believe that this great moral authority at the Justice Department is 
right.
  I say to my colleagues, the question here is not the merits of the 
lawsuit or any other lawsuit, the question here is the merits of the 
morality at the Justice Department. Does the end justify the means? 
They say yes; I say no. Is this a nation of laws or of men? I say laws, 
and the Congress better say laws. They are taking your prerogative here 
down there and they are using it as they choose. I say to my 
colleagues, reject the Justice Department's grab of other agencies' 
money, but more importantly, the Justice Department's seizure of power 
away from the Congress.
  Never was it intended in this Congress in the passage of this statute 
that it was to be funding lawsuits filed by the Government. No one ever 
anticipated that or thought about it when we passed the act. The intent 
of the Congress is being clarified in our bill, and that is, this 
statute is for defensive purposes only. Reject the Waxman amendment 
that would legitimize and reward a Justice Department that has seized 
your prerogative and is acting like they are the law themselves and we 
do not matter.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the end does not justify the these means. I urge 
my colleagues to tell the Justice Department to obey the law.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment. This amendment would 
restore the permission of the Justice Department to use section 109 to 
receive funding from client agencies interested in aiding them in the 
tobacco litigation. The federal tobacco litigation is the only active 
litigation affected by this savings clause.
  This bill puts the Department of Justice at a disadvantage in its 
case against tobacco companies.
  These companies present a devastating product to this country. They 
target the younger generations because of their vulnerability to the 
admittedly addictive agent, nicotine and overwhelming amount of peer 
pressure. An RJR research planning memorandum says and I quote, 
``Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the 
long term we must get our share of the youth market. . . .'' A 
memorandum to Curtis Judge, President of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said 
that ``The success of NEWPORT has been fantastic during the past few 
years. . . . [T]he base of our business is the high school student. . . 
.''
  Our nation's credit-worthy veterans become addicted while in the 
service to cigarettes. The companies themselves have admitted to the 
addicting qualities of nicotine. S.J. Green, BATCo Director of Research 
reported that ``The strong addiction to cigarette[s] removes freedom of 
choice from many individuals.''
  Another injustice of this market is that it targets low-income areas, 
who traditionally have insufficient amounts of health care. In my 
district I have 165,000 people who live at or below the poverty level--
many of them suffer from the effects of tobacco.
  The American people spend $25 billion to treat tobacco-related 
illnesses while being given no choice whether to become addicted or 
not.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs spends over $1 billion a year 
treating tobacco-related illness. Therefore, it is impossible that 
their budget of $4 million will be used in the litigation. Most of 
their money goes toward treatment of people with tobacco-induced 
illnesses. The bill as it stands blocks the Department of Veterans 
Affairs from helping the Department of Justice in this lawsuit that 
greatly involves them.
  This is an injustice to the American people who expect the government 
to defend their right for healthy lives.
  I support the amendment to this bill because in 1998 the promise was 
made on this House floor that we would ``take all steps necessary to 
recover from tobacco companies the cost which would be incurred by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related 
illnesses of veterans. It will delete the rider and give the veterans 
the chance to recover tens of billions of dollars for Veteran's 
Affairs' underfunded medical care.
  This measure helps the Department of Justice's requests pay back to 
the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of the 
tobacco industry by unrestricted funding for the endeavor.
  It will further protect those targeted youths from being victimized 
for their vulnerability to addictive agents.
  The House should not be vulnerable to persuasion of any measure that 
cuts the prosecuting of those entities that pose harm to the country.
  We have the responsibility to protect the people from unnecessary 
health risks by keeping them aware of the health risks.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 183, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--183

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest

[[Page 12114]]


     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Bachus
     Berman
     Canady
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cox
     Dixon
     Filner
     Gekas
     Istook
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     Lazio
     Leach
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Myrick
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Salmon
     Smith (WA)
     Tauzin
     Tierney
     Towns
     Vento
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1019

  Messrs. SKEEN, SHADEGG and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. BONO, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. CALVERT changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee 
for this recognition. I rise to discuss the issue of methamphetamine 
lab cleanup, an issue of great importance to my State of Arkansas and 
to the rest of rural America. Let me also thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky for including funds in the bill for meth lab cleanup for 
fiscal year 2001. This much needed appropriation bill that provides 
meth lab cleanup for 2001 will ensure that we do not find ourselves in 
a crisis situation again. As we all know, the DEA ran out of funds for 
this critical program in mid-March and many of us have been working to 
find additional fiscal year 2000 funds through a variety of sources. 
Unfortunately, the need is still pressing.
  I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Kentucky would be 
willing to continue working with me and other interested Members to 
address the fiscal year 2000 shortfall before the end of this fiscal 
year.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has also been 
very active in this effort.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership 
on this issue. I would like to reinforce the importance of funding for 
meth lab cleanup for Wisconsin and the majority of rural America. Our 
local law enforcement agencies do not possess the resources to fund 
meth lab cleanup, and therefore we currently have two meth labs in my 
district that are sitting and waiting until funds can be made available 
from the DEA to clean them up. This presents a serious safety and 
environmental danger.
  I would also like to inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if he 
will work to continue to address the shortfall in the current fiscal 
year for the meth lab cleanup.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I thank both of the gentlemen for their leadership on 
this very important issue. It is a matter that we have been dealing 
with in our subcommittee now for some time attempting to find the funds 
to be able to adequately fight this battle. I will remain committed to 
working with them and with the Senate and the administration to resolve 
the fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for that commitment and for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I rise to do 
this, but I guess I will just say that I seek to engage in a colloquy 
with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been very 
diligent in his efforts to provide funding for various law enforcement 
needs. I greatly appreciate that.
  One of the areas is in the category of missing and exploited 
children. One of the areas that is of grave concern to me and a great 
many other Members of Congress is the problem of child pornography and 
child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It is a very, very serious 
problem. In the past, funds have been specifically designated for the 
purpose of providing funding to State and local law enforcement 
agencies to combat this. In last year's legislation, $6 million was so 
appropriated. I had intended to offer an amendment this year which 
provides that that $6 million or more be specifically designated for 
that purpose. The gentleman from Kentucky has indicated that this can 
be taken care of in conference and that this money will indeed 
ultimately be so designated.
  I hope to engage in a colloquy here to find out if indeed that is the 
case and he can indicate to me his plans for providing these funds for 
this specific purpose. They are a part of the, as I understand it, $19 
million that is for missing and exploited children in general. At this 
point the chairman has not earmarked any of that money, but we are 
concerned that this money not go somewhere else and is provided to 
local law enforcement for the purpose of combating this serious problem 
on the Internet.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I will continue to work with the gentleman to provide 
funding for this program at least at last year's level.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman 
from Kentucky in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department 
of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the 
Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Kentucky 
knows, among the programs and uses

[[Page 12115]]

that are eligible for money are those to help State and local crime 
laboratories in reducing the backlog in their convicted offender DNA 
sample databases and updating their laboratory equipment for this 
purpose. These criminal DNA databases are playing a vital role in 
tracking down the guilty and freeing the innocent.
  Unfortunately, as we have heard over the last few days, many States 
and local governments are overwhelmed and are falling behind on getting 
these DNA samples logged onto their system, and they require additional 
funding. This is where Federal grants can make an important difference. 
State and local crime labs need our help to address this growing 
backlog.
  Mr. Chairman, through this colloquy today, I hope we can send a 
strong message to the Justice Department urging them to give grants for 
these DNA sampling-related activities extra weight and every reasonable 
consideration.
  Would the chairman of the committee agree with me on the importance 
of reducing the convicted offender DNA sample backlogs?

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Green) and appreciate his attention to this pressing issue. I 
would hope that the Department of Justice shares our views on this and 
acts accordingly.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his support and commend him 
on crafting a bill that addresses our crime-fighting needs.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green) for yielding to me and appreciate him for bringing this 
important issue to the floor at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I testified before the subcommittee 
concerning the growing nationwide backlog of unanalyzed convicted 
offender DNA samples. As we are all aware, every day the use of DNA 
evidence is becoming a more important tool to our Nation's law 
enforcement personnel; and last year I began to work with the FBI, with 
New York Governor George Pataki and the New York State Police 
Department to develop a cooperative and comprehensive resolution of 
this problem.
  Consequently, I introduced H.R. 3375, the Convicted Offender DNA 
Index System Support Act to assist local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement personnel by ensuring that crucial resources are provided 
to our DNA databanks and our crime labs.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's fight against crime is never over. The 
Justice Department estimates that erasing our Nation's convicted 
offender backlog alone could resolve at least 600 pending cases. I hope 
the House will pass this final legislation. Mr. Chairman, I look 
forward to working with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in 
conference to ensure proper funding to eliminate this DNA backlog.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for 
their interest and work in this vital issue, and I look forward to 
working with them to eliminate this backlog.
  Mr. GILMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his time and appreciate 
his efforts to address the backlog to provide our Nation's law 
enforcement community with the state-of-the-art equipment that is so 
sorely needed to fight violent crime throughout our Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, 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 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 except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 108. Section 108(a) of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113) shall apply for fiscal year 
     2001 and thereafter.
       Sec. 109. Section 3024 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 106-31) shall apply for 
     fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 110. For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, section 109 
     of Public Law 103-317 (28 U.S.C. 509 note) shall apply only 
     to litigation in which the United States, or an agency or 
     officer of the United States, is a defendant.
       Sec. 111. Section 115 of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113) shall apply for fiscal year 
     2001.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

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

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
       Page 37, strike lines 12 through 16 (section 111).

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this 
amendment to the Commerce, State, Justice appropriation. This would 
allow the judicial process to move forward for a number of attorneys at 
the Justice Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members to know that the 
Department of Justice has violated, in my judgment, and continues to 
violate title 5 of the Federal Employee Pay Act, FEPA, by deliberately 
refusing to pay overtime to its attorney personnel. Now, DOJ knows that 
this policy of not paying overtime is contrary to the law, as its own 
Office of Legal Counsel officially advised years ago and there is a 
pending lawsuit on this.
  The current legislation strikes down paying this year's overtime and 
would not be able to pay it out of this year's appropriation which 
would be about $50 million, but this does not score under the CBO 
rulings.
  Rather than coming to compliance with the law in response to a class 
action that has been filed against it, DOJ has now run to Congress 
pleading for immunity from the statutory requirement. The proposal that 
DOJ inserted in last year's appropriation bill and seeks again this 
year would make its attorney personnel the only employees within the 
Department of Justice who are not entitled to overtime and the only 
attorneys employed by the Federal Government who are not entitled to 
overtime. Because DOJ attorneys already are statutorily entitled to 
this compensation, the appropriations language DOJ seeks constitutes 
what is, in effect, a 20 percent to 25 percent pay cut for our Nation's 
prosecutors.

[[Page 12116]]

  I think this proposal is grossly unfair. We need to remember that 
first-year associate salaries at the Nation's leading law firms now 
exceed $120,000 a year; but new attorneys at the Department of Justice 
with similar credentials make approximately $40,000 a year. While the 
most seasoned prosecutors at DOJ, people who have put their career to 
working for the Justice Department, are capped at just over $100,000 a 
year.
  Many of our seasoned attorneys, the best people we are counting on in 
these lawsuits that we are defending and bringing across the country, 
U.S. attorneys offices, are making less money than first-year 
associates at some of the leading law firms in the country.
  This legislation is a pay cut, because, in effect, it is a salary 
reduction, because if this lawsuit is settled or is won this year, we 
could not pay the money from this year.
  In fairness to my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, this language which I 
said before was placed in last year's omnibus appropriations package 
was done so at the requests of the Department of Justice. The 
Department obviously fearing that the court will find for the attorneys 
has asked the Congress to let them off the hook again this year.
  We delayed Justice for long enough. Every year, the Department of 
Justice attracts the best and the brightest attorneys from all the top 
law schools, but this is not going to continue if we are not allowed to 
pay these people what they are worth and what they are entitled to 
under the law.
  These young attorneys knowing they could make hundreds of thousands 
of dollars more in the private sector choose to still serve the public 
interest. Assistant U.S. Attorneys work long hours of overtime, they 
have sued under existing labor laws to be compensated for that 
overtime; and if they win, no dollars now could be paid out this year 
for this year's overtime that they are paying out.
  If my colleagues are worried about the potential costs, no this is 
not a budget issue, not a budget issue. The Congressional Budget Office 
has informed us that striking section 111 will have no impact on the 
FY2001 Federal budget, but what it will do is restore some semblance of 
responsibility to the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember the last time that an agency in the 
executive branch so blatantly and callously asked this House to exempt 
them from their responsibilities. We have just been fighting over this, 
Justice Department going on, not paying their own employees, attorney 
personnel.
  Once again, all the other attorneys in the other agencies are 
compensated; in Justice Department they are not, and they are the only 
Justice Department attorneys that are not. I hope that we can adopt 
this amendment or give some assurance that we can address this 
downstream from the committee chairman at this point.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, as well, offered 
by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), to strike 
section 111 from this bill. This is an issue of basic fairness for 
thousands of Justice Department attorneys in my district and throughout 
the Nation.
  The Department of Justice is the only Federal agency violating 
Federal wage law. For the second straight year, the Justice Department 
has asked, and the committee has agreed, to insert into the bill a 
moratorium on using funds appropriated under this bill to pay overtime 
to Justice Department lawyers.
  This moratorium is being imposed at a time when this issue was before 
the courts as part of a class action lawsuit brought by DOJ lawyers to 
force their Department to pay overtime in compliance with title 5, and 
it is entirely possible that the courts will rule this year in favor of 
the plaintiff lawyers, and then we have this language that prevents 
them from being able to implement the decision of the court.
  These assistant U.S. Attorneys work nearly 2 million hours of 
overtime in one recent year, but were compensated for only 63 hours. 
They work 2 million hours and were compensated for 63 hours. They have 
to keep two separate records, one real and one phony. We are just 
asking that the real one be recognized instead of the phony one. The 
other attorneys in the other Federal agencies are getting fully 
compensated for overtime, and our assistant U.S. Attorneys are getting 
paid less than the attorneys in other Federal agencies who are doing 
the same work.
  These attorneys who work for the Justice Department, though, have 
particularly difficult jobs. Many of them have to leave their homes and 
families for weeks at a time to try cases in distant parts of the 
country. They are involved in stressful cases often involving serious 
organized crime or complex litigation. I have heard of Department of 
Justice lawyers being awakened in the middle of the night to argue the 
merits of an emergency injunction for the Government. Some have 
received threats because of their work.
  They perform these services at a lower salary than they can work in 
the private sector. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) cited, a 
first year law student in many of those law firms is making six 
figures, and these people come in at $40,000 on average. Senior lawyers 
certainly on K Street are making five times what we pay these assistant 
U.S. attorneys for the Department of Justice.
  It is not fair. The problem is that the American people are going to 
suffer because we are not going to be able to retain the best lawyers. 
We are not going to have the best representation if we do not 
compensate them fairly. They are treated in a manner that is completely 
contrary to the way that lawyers and other Federal agencies are 
treated, and it is just unfair.
  It is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. The Congressional Budget 
Office has advised us that section 111 will have no fiscal impact; so 
for any number of reasons, but the most important is fairness, I urge 
my colleagues to do what is fair and equitable for our Nation's Justice 
Department.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say very briefly the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) made an eloquent argument, 
particularly in the marketplace today. As a Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, and I know that we know what practice in law many years ago 
the salaries that compensated new law graduates, we have not bright, 
young people in our government agencies, bright, young people at the 
Department of Justice. It seems only fair that in order to keep the 
best and the brightest on behalf of the American people, that we should 
provide them with their overtime. This is a good amendment and we 
should support it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) very much for her comments. 
They were right on.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision that the Davis amendment proposes to 
strike is identical to the provision that is in the current act. This 
has been in the bill now for some time. All this provision does is to 
ensure that the Department of Justice, especially the U.S. Attorneys, 
are not hit with a huge funding shortfall in 2001. We are talking $50 
million to $70 million that they would have to eat if something were 
not done in this bill.
  The bill does not currently include any funds to pay overtime to 
lawyers at the Department of Justice. These attorneys like most other 
professionals in the Federal Government, have never been paid overtime, 
never. None of the professionals in the Government are paid overtime. 
While the issue of whether Department of Justice attorneys are entitled 
to overtime is a part of the lawsuit that is now pending and ongoing, 
the provision in this bill in no way affects the ongoing litigation.
  What this provision does do is to ensure that the Department of 
Justice, particularly U.S. Attorneys, are not

[[Page 12117]]

hit with a funding shortfall of as much as $50 million in 2001 should 
the lawsuit be decided in favor of the attorneys who have sued for 
overtime.
  Mr. Chairman, that kind of a shortfall would trigger massive 
furloughs and reductions in force throughout the Department and in 
every U.S. Attorney's office in the country. Nor does this provision 
prejudge future congressional action. In fact, it is an issue that 
Congress needs to look at both from a policy and a funding perspective.
  On the policy side, the issue is whether Congress, in fact, intended 
to provide overtime pay for Department of Justice lawyers. In addition, 
the funding ramifications of paying overtime have to be considered. As 
a group, Department of Justice attorneys are compensated at the top end 
of the Federal pay scale; an average attorney salary is over $94,000; 
and for assistant U.S. attorneys, which have their own pay scale, the 
average is even higher.
  As a result, payment of overtime will be a very significant cost to 
the taxpayer; and in the bill, we have maintained the status quo while 
the litigation goes on; and at the same time we give Congress the 
opportunity to further study this issue of whether or not fiscally or 
as a matter of policy to allow overtime to DOJ lawyers.
  In the meantime, let us keep the status quo and do not prejudice the 
outcome, and I urge a rejection of this amendment.

                              {time}  1045

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529 further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) will 
be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 112. Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(t) Genealogy Fee.--(1) There is hereby established the 
     Genealogy Fee for providing genealogy research and 
     information services. This fee shall be deposited as 
     offsetting collections into the Examinations Fee Account. 
     Fees for such research and information services may be set at 
     a level that will ensure the recovery of the full costs of 
     providing all such services.
       ``(2) The Attorney General will prepare and submit annually 
     to Congress statements of the financial condition of the 
     Genealogy Fee.
       ``(3) Any officer or employee of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service shall collect fees prescribed under 
     regulation before disseminating any requested genealogical 
     information.
       ``(u) Premium Fee for Employment-Based Petitions and 
     Applications.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     establish and collect a premium fee for employment-based 
     petitions and applications. This fee shall be used to provide 
     certain premium-processing services to business customers, 
     and to make infrastructure improvements in the adjudications 
     and customer-service processes. For approval of the benefit 
     applied for, the petitioner/applicant must meet the legal 
     criteria for such benefit. This fee shall be set at $1,000, 
     shall be paid in addition to any normal petition/application 
     fee that may be applicable, and shall be deposited as 
     offsetting collections in the Immigration Examinations Fee 
     Account. The Attorney General may adjust this fee according 
     to the Consumer Price Index.''.
       Sec. 113. During the current fiscal year, the Attorney 
     General may not certify any amount for appropriation under 
     section 1817(k)(3)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i(k)(3)(A)(i)) to the Health Care Fraud and Abuse 
     Control Account for any purpose of the Department of Justice, 
     unless the Attorney General has notified the Committees on 
     Appropriations, at least 15 days in advance, of the amount 
     and purpose involved.


          Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 39, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 114. Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``$6'' and inserting 
     ``$8''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the summer months begin, 
many more Americans will be traveling overseas, and we have found out 
through the complaints of the travelling public that as they come back 
into the country, the low number of inspectors has caused an enormous 
traffic jam that really makes their trip less enjoyable and less 
efficient and shows that the American Government cannot do our job.
  The President's budget includes language that would increase the 
current user fee from $6 to $8 and would increase the current user fee 
to that amount and would lift the cruise ship exemption and institute 
an $8 cruise ship fee from passengers whose journeys originate in 
Mexico, Canada and the United States, territorial possessions of the 
United States, or any adjacent island in the United States.
  This amendment will pay for 154 inspectors at new airport terminals. 
Current construction at San Francisco, Detroit, Miami and Philadelphia 
international airports will increase the number of international gates 
and primary inspection booths. In my own city of Houston, where there 
is a need for as much as 113 inspectors, we have a very small number of 
68.
  With the anticipated increase in international travelers at each 
location, INS will require additional inspectors in order to process 
all passengers within 45 minutes. Mr. Chairman, if you could imagine, 
the lines get longer and longer and longer and the wait gets longer and 
longer and longer; and our United States citizens and others coming 
into this country are inconvenienced more and more and more. They look 
to the United States to be an efficient, well-oiled working machine. I 
think this simple increase is not a burden in order to create a more 
efficient system and to protect the traveling public.
  Mr. Chairman, we need this amendment in order to pay for these 
additional immigration inspectors at these busy airports and hubs. I 
met with the INS Commission, and I know that this is a severe problem. 
As I noted, in my own home city of Houston, Texas, that the lines are 
long and airlines and airports are in serious danger of losing 
business. The lack of the adequate number of immigration inspectors, 
particularly during these summer months when we have the July 4th 
weekend coming up, is an important matter to fix. Let us remedy this 
problem and pass this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on 
the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, let me note that in this legislation, the section that 
I am amending, the Immigration and Nationality Act, is being amended in 
section 111 with a genealogy fee, and I note I am doing the same thing, 
so I would ask that the point of order be lifted and that this 
amendment be allowed to be voted on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard further on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is ready to rule. The Chair finds that the 
amendment proposes directly to change the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. As such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.

[[Page 12118]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $26,433,000, of which $1,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.


                  Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 39, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,300,000)''.
       Page 41, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $17,700,000)''.
       Page 41, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,300,000)''.
       Page 41, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $9,900,000)''.
       Page 41, line 16, after ``Service,'' insert the following: 
     ``$1,500,000 shall be for transfer to the Department of 
     Agriculture for trade compliance activities,''.
       Page 71, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago the House passed the bill on 
China trade policy. I did not support that bill; the majority did. I am 
not here to enter into another argument about what we should have done 
on that bill, but I do believe if we are going to enter into that type 
of trade relationship with China, or any other country, that we have to 
rigorously enforce the agreement to ensure the full benefit for 
American companies, American workers, and American farmers.
  The problem is that this appropriations bill, which is produced by 
the majority party, which pushed so hard for eliminating the 
application of Jackson-Vanik to China, provides no additional funding 
to the agencies charged with oversight, monitoring and enforcement of 
that trade agreement.
  The office of U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, 
the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture simply need 
additional resources to make sure that the Chinese implement and comply 
with that signed agreement. They have a record of not complying; and 
without vigilant monitoring and enforcement of that agreement by 
American agencies, U.S. workers, companies and consumers will have no 
assurance that they are going to receive the benefits that they are 
allegedly going to receive under that proposition.
  The administration's request for the trade compliance initiative was 
a modest $22 million in total to support compliance efforts with China 
and to more rigorously enforce ongoing trade agreements. Of the amount, 
$16.2 million is budgeted for the Commerce Department, $3 million for 
State, $1.3 million for the Trade Representative's Office, and $1.5 
million for the Department of Agriculture.
  This amendment simply provides the full amount requested by the 
administration, including the amount requested and not provided in the 
agriculture bill for USDA's role in monitoring and enforcing trade 
agreements.
  What is not included in my amendment today, but what I believe needs 
to be considered as we move through the process, is funding for the 
additional oversight and monitoring of functions that were proposed in 
conjunction with the PNTR bill by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). My amendment 
would simply be the first step in ensuring that expanding trade with 
China and any current or future trade partner is carried out with the 
least cost and the most return to U.S. consumers, workers, and 
companies.
  Again, the majority party in this bill has provided no additional 
funding to the Department of Commerce and the other trade agencies to 
enforce the U.S. trade laws and implement safeguard provisions, 
providing no assurance to U.S. companies and workers who could be hurt 
by a flood of imports from China.
  I would point out that what this bill does, for instance, is it 
doubles resources for import surge monitoring; it increases by 25 
percent the number of analysts working on expedited dumping and subsidy 
investigations; it triples the number of compliance officers in 
Washington working on China; and for the first time, it would put 
compliance officers on the ground in China and create an office devoted 
to China dumping cases.
  In addition, it would double the number of compliance officers in 
Washington working on Japan and put compliance officers on the ground 
there also. It would add 10 analysts to Japan dumping cases. I have 
experienced that personally with a problem affecting a company in my 
own district.
  It would also create a technical assistance center to help small 
businesses and unions understand available trade remedies, and it would 
help collect data necessary to file the required cases.
  I would point out that, in my view, this bill is underfunded by at 
least $1 billion in meeting our peacekeeping responsibilities, our 
responsibilities to the Weather Service and other agencies under NOAA, 
law enforcement, Legal Services and the like; and I think this is just 
a small restoration of what we will eventually be required before the 
President is willing to affix his signature on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that I have a letter from 
our friend, Jerry Jasinowski, at the National Association of 
Manufacturers, which is in support of the full administration request 
for these items, and I would simply quote two paragraphs:

       We do not want our members to be on the alert for 
     compliance problems only to find out that the administration 
     lacks the resources to bring about enforcement actions on the 
     issues we raise. It is important that the administration be 
     able to act when we see problems. Therefore, I strongly urge 
     you to support the administration's request for $26.6 million 
     in funding for expanded compliance and enforcement, 
     particularly the Commerce Department's Market Access and 
     Compliance Initiative, into which we will be feeding the 
     problems we uncover.
       This increase in Commerce's Market Access and Compliance 
     funding in the fiscal 2001 budget is the minimum that will 
     translate foreign commitments into more exports for U.S. 
     firms and more high paying job opportunities for Americans. 
     Candidly, we would like to see even more. We need this 
     program to ensure we receive the benefits of China's entry 
     into the WTO.

  Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that if this House passed that 
effort 1 week ago, it, at a minimum, has an obligation to do this and 
then to follow on with the additional protections suggested by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) down the line.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to assert the point of order; but 
before doing so, let me rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill provides an increase of $13 million over the 
current level for the U.S. Trade Representative, International Trade 
Administration, and International Trade Commission. This funding 
continues the overseas presence of the foreign commercial service at 
the current level of operations. Likewise, the bill provides full base 
funding for the Department of State to continue current their overseas 
staffing levels.

[[Page 12119]]

  If there is a requirement for personnel with specific expertise in 
trade monitoring, there is certainly room within the overall funding 
level to redirect funds to that priority. So there is plenty of money 
in this bill for the purposes for which the gentleman is concerned.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The amendment would provide new 
budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation made under 
section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, many times on this floor now 
the decision of the Republican leadership to cut over $1 billion in 
needed programs in this bill out of the President's budget request was 
caused by their desire to pass a whole series of tax packages which, 
among other things, gave $200 billion in tax relief to the wealthiest 
400 Americans last week, and under those circumstances, because there 
is no----
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a further point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we are supposedly addressing the Chair on 
the point of order only, is that not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the point of order; but they 
will be my words, not those of the gentleman from Kentucky, or else we 
will be here a long time. I can strike the last word and go on forever, 
if the gentleman wants me to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Wisconsin out on 
the point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. The point I was making before I was interrupted is that 
because the majority party has chosen to put first their requirement to 
take every possible dollar and put it into tax cuts for the wealthiest 
2 percent of people in this country, that means that we do not have 
sufficient room to fund the programs that are necessary in this bill in 
order to get a presidential signature.

                              {time}  1100

  Therefore, I regretfully have to concede the gentleman's point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order, and the 
point of order is sustained.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before we move on, I do want to say just a few words 
about the matter that we have just been discussing. The distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee and I have discussed this matter briefly, 
and I understand the budget constraints under which he is working. I 
hope, however, that we do not translate those constraints into an 
argument that the amount provided herein is adequate for the compliance 
efforts that are needed in terms of trade legislation, including China 
PNTR. Because that is simply not correct.
  If the administration request is not met eventually in terms of USTR, 
here is what would happen. This relates to critical legislation 
relating to trade. The USTR would not be able to fund 13 trade 
compliance positions, including seven related to China; I repeat, 13 
trade compliance positions, including seven related to China. We simply 
cannot abide that. The economic relationship with China, as well as 
with other countries, is a complex one, and we simply have to meet the 
challenges of compliance.
  In terms of the Commerce Department, if the administration request is 
not met, what it means is that Commerce will not be able to fund 19 
enforcement officers in the market access compliance unit devoted to 
China enforcement and monitoring; and 16 trade analysts for import 
administration. Indeed, Commerce, which did not receive cost of living 
increases, will have to decrease staff in import administration and in 
the market access compliance unit. There are other ramifications in 
this bill for the ITC.
  So I would simply urge that while the point of order has been upheld, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), having fought the good 
fight, reluctantly has to acquiesce because of the shape of the budget 
resolution, that as this matter moves through the process, there will 
be an effort, and a successful one, to meet our obligations. We cannot 
pass trade legislation that involves major compliance and enforcement 
issues and then not provide the administration with the wherewithal to 
carry out those obligations. As Mr. Jasinowski said, that would be bad 
for the business community. It will be bad for the entire community, 
for the workers and the businesses of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like it understood that as far as the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is concerned, I am sure, and the vast 
majority of us, we will not yield until this matter is attended to.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if my chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) would enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be 
delighted to.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have been certainly trying to work 
closely with the gentleman on making this bill a better bill and making 
this process a better process, but I am a little troubled by any 
limitation of speaking time. So I would ask if the gentleman would 
consider, as a gentleman to a gentleman, on any point of order the 
gentleman may have, just withholding that point of order, reserving his 
right to it, and allowing everyone else to speak on it so we do not 
engage in something that may look like stifling of opposition on some 
of the issues.
  I certainly wanted to speak on the last amendment; I know I can do it 
by striking the last word, but by the gentleman cutting off the debate 
as he did, I think he just creates a situation over here that we do not 
need at this time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that. However, yes 
we did that, and the debate went on interminably on items that were 
stricken on a point of order. I want to be lenient and to be fair, but 
there is a limit; we have a clock to deal with.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but 
I am not a big fan of curtailing time, and I am also not a big fan of a 
process which starts off with letting everybody speak under the 5-
minute rule and then stopping people at the end of the bill from 
speaking more than they are allowed to. I think it is wrong, and I 
think it makes it worse if people, on a point of order, are cut off 
immediately so that they have to find unique ways of speaking on an 
issue that they should have spoken on when the amendment was on the 
floor.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we can work together on this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply note for observation by the 
gentleman from Kentucky that the Rules of the House allow Members, if 
the majority decides to proceed under an open rule and under the 5-
minute rule, the Rules of the House allow Members to strike the last 
word any time they want in order to make their points. All the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is suggesting is that it makes 
more sense to have those remarks come in direct relationship to an 
amendment rather than having to strike the last word after the 
amendment has been disposed of.
  We did not put this bill together on the minority side, it is put 
together on

[[Page 12120]]

the majority side, and it should not be surprising that those in the 
minority who have no opportunity to, in fact, change the content of the 
bill at least want an opportunity to explain their concerns about it, 
which is what the normal amendment process is supposed to be all about.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, I do not think anyone can say 
that we were not completely lenient. I mean we sat here listening to 
maybe an hour and a half or 2 hours at one point.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with that.
  Mr. ROGERS. We spent time listening to people who spoke on a matter 
that everyone knew was subject to a point of order and we allowed that 
to take place. I want to continue to be as lenient as possible and will 
do so to work with my colleagues, but we must bear in mind that we have 
to finish this bill before eternity strikes us.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is a point here 
that yesterday on the Justice part of the bill everyone got a chance to 
speak and it seems like we are going to curtail on other parts. We are 
either blessed or cursed by the fact that our bill covers a lot of 
areas, and I think all areas deserve time.
  As far as time, we really have until October before we have to panic.


                Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. English

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

       Amendment No. 61 offered by Mr. English:
       Page 39, line 21, after the dollar figure, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 11, after the dollar figure, insert 
     ``(decreased by $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which would 
appropriate an additional $3 million for the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative. These extra funds would satisfy the USTR request to add 
25 new employees to handle negotiations, monitoring, and enforcement of 
trade agreements. These positions within the USTR are needed to add 
permanent trade negotiators to several offices with four or fewer 
professionals, including offices for China, agriculture, environment, 
Africa, and economic affairs.
  With the passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, this 
amendment is the essential next step. With an ever-increasing amount of 
trade activity and with the United States having entered into numerous 
trade relationships, including NAFTA and the WTO, we must make certain 
that our trading partners honor the promises and commitments that were 
made. Approval of these funds is critical to acquire the needed staff 
for monitoring and compliance of the U.S.-China bilateral agreement and 
China's accession to the World Trade Organization.
  The amendment presents a simple choice: jobs for constituents and 
export-oriented firms or in industries threatened by illegal and 
predatory practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy. 
All too often, countries do not fulfill their obligations regarding 
trade agreements, which results in job loss. It is imperative that we 
show our constituents that we are serious about protecting U.S. jobs. 
We need to invest now in patrolling our markets and open new ones. 
Congress must make certain that USTR is given the proper tools to 
monitor and enforce these trade agreements. The English amendment 
provides the necessary funding for enforcing the trade agreements that 
we have entered into.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to review some of 
the new positions that would be added if this $3 million is 
appropriated for USTR. USTR is proposing to add 25 new positions. Of 
these positions, two will be added to enforce agricultural 
negotiations. At a time when our farmers are struggling, we need to 
make sure that their needs are being met and that market access is 
being addressed.
  If we are concerned about China, and some of the other speakers have 
been, one position will be added to assist in the administration of the 
agricultural agreement of April 1999 and the WTO market access 
agreement negotiated last November. There is a position that focuses on 
Japan to negotiate market-opening measures under the bilateral 
deregulation initiative, including those on housing and energy.
  If my colleagues are concerned about the environment, which many of 
my colleagues are, a staff person would be added to work on the WTO 
built-in agenda and other negotiated environmental agreements. The 
labor specialist would be added to work on trade-related labor issues 
and human rights. A policy expert would be added to carry out trade 
agreements with Africa, a building on the recently-passed African 
Growth and Opportunity Act. In addition, three positions, which focus 
mainly on monitoring and enforcement regarding WTO and NAFTA cases, 
provide and help to enforce U.S. trade laws such as sections 201, 301, 
special 301, GSP, and other laws relating to intellectual property, and 
government procurement would be provided for under this amendment.
  Two policy experts would be added to specialize on economic affairs 
to analyze economic effects and enforcement cases. Lastly, several 
positions would be added to enforce and monitor existing regional 
arrangements.
  Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible to me how USTR is managing to 
enforce these agreements with the limited staff that they already have. 
As trade liberalization spreads throughout the world, however we may 
feel about trade issues, whichever side of the debate on free and fair 
trade we may be on, we need to recognize that the U.S. needs to be 
prepared to provide the necessary resources to be our watchdog on 
trade. We need to help USTR here.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment, it is one that enjoys 
bipartisan support, and I hope that the Chamber will join me in making 
this commitment to free, fair, and open trade.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find this amendment interesting and in some ways, 
contradictory. What this amendment does is to provide about $3 million 
to the U.S. Office of Trade Representative, but it really, as I 
understand it, does two things. It does, as the gentleman has 
indicated, provide additional resources to that agency to monitor trade 
agreements; but it also, in my view, goes beyond that and also provides 
additional resources for that agency to, in fact, work on new trade 
agreements.
  Now, a lot of people in this House will have no objection to that. I 
personally would prefer to see solid enforcement of the trade 
agreements we now have before we move on to new ones.
  Secondly, I would point out that, and I am not going to oppose the 
amendment, but I do want to highlight what I think the remaining 
shortcomings are that this Congress has still refused to meet, because 
what this does is to totally leave out additional funding for the 
agency that does the real job of on-the-ground monitoring and 
enforcement of our trade agreements.

                              {time}  1115

  This still does not make available the resources which I sought to 
make available in my amendment that would triple the number of 
compliance officers and put compliance officers on the ground in China, 
and add 10 analysts to Japan dumping cases, and do a variety of things 
that the Commerce Department does in order to protect the interests of 
American companies and American workers.
  So there is no real harm in the amendment, I suppose, except that the 
source for funding for this amendment comes from the Commerce 
Department itself, and in that sense will squeeze that agency's ability 
to meet its responsibilities.
  So as I say, this is a small thing. I have no real objection to it. I 
do question the source. Given the problems associated with the bill, I 
understand why the gentleman has gone to that

[[Page 12121]]

source. But I do not think we should kid ourselves that we have done a 
terrific job of enforcing trade laws and protecting American interests 
in those enforcement actions by adding funds only to this agency.
  If we do not fund the administration request for the Commerce 
Department enforcement, we will have, I think, provided the stem on a 
fig leaf, and done little more to protect the interests of either 
American workers or companies.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. USTR's 
appropriation under the CJS bill is $3.2 million less than its request, 
and this amendment would bring its appropriations closer to its 
request.
  This is a remarkable agency. It operates on a lean budget while 
charged with enormous responsibilities. USTR's' annual operating budget 
has remained virtually level during the 1990s, and almost all budget 
increases since FY91 have been used to meet legislated employee pay 
raises and other rising costs of doing business.
  Despite a no-growth budget, and even though the agency's workload has 
exploded, USTR has made impressive accomplishments. It has concluded a 
significant number of trade agreements, and has successfully resolved 
25 dispute settlement cases in the first 5 years of the WTO.
  With China's imminent accession to the WTO, a strong, well-funded 
USTR is more necessary than ever to monitor foreign compliance with WTO 
obligations and to enforce our rights under the WTO.
  The ability of U.S. producers to export their products depends upon 
USTR's efforts to open foreign markets and keep them open. This leads 
to increased global trade, which leads to our economic prosperity. But 
USTR cannot fulfill its mission without these urgently needed funds. 
This amendment is essential to help USTR do what Congress and the 
American people expect, and I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I will 
not oppose the amendment, but I do understand that the funds that are 
very much needed for trade enforcement do come in the Commerce 
Department's administration.
  I would like to make two points. First of all, the Commerce 
Department in general in this bill is starved very seriously. In fact, 
they claim that, in general, they are $112 million below the money they 
need to operate properly.
  Secondly, they are $19 million below what they need in 
administration, including what Secretary Daley needed for security at 
the Commerce Department.
  So while we do not oppose, I would hope that the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) would understand that acceptance of this 
amendment means that we do have to try to find a few dollars later, in 
addition to the other dollars for the Commerce Department.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would speak in favor of this amendment, because I 
think it gives us an additional tool to in fact put WTO to work for us.
  I want to address one very important issue where we need to put WTO 
to work for us in enforcement of our trade agreements. That is this 
emerging threat from the Airbus Industrie to the primacy of our 
aerospace industry.
  Right now while we speak there are plans afoot for European 
governments to heavily subsidize, perhaps to the area of $4 billion, 
the research development projects for the new generation double-deck 
double-aisle jumbo jet, super jumbo jet by Airbus. This appears to be 
clearly in violation of WTO and agreements we have reached with the 
European community in at least two respects: number one, it clearly 
shows a subsidized loan situation by which several governments in 
Europe have already agreed to effectively subsidize through these 
governmental loans this development of this aircraft; and secondly, the 
abject failure and refusal of the European community to show us any 
critical project assessment, which was required by our 1992 agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to use these funds to make sure that we 
aggressively pursue enforcement of the WTO treaties, which are now 
being breached, and our 1992 agreements with the European community. I 
believe an investigation will show that these agreements have not been 
honored, and that we face the loss of aerospace primacy, which is 
important to the thousands of Boeing workers, I must say, in my 
district, but important to the whole United States economy.
  Let us pass this amendment. Let us go forward to put WTO to work to 
keep aerospace number one in this country.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good amendment. I would hope that 
Members would support it. The USTR needs more funding, and we will 
attempt to remedy the source that the amendment seeks in later 
proceedings on this bill, so I would urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of the English amendment, 
and want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my 
good friend, for offering this.
  While I am concerned about the general funding levels for the 
Department of Commerce, and recognize that we are already $19 million 
below the request, I do think that we need to ensure that the promises 
that have been made in the past, whether it be on NAFTA, whether it be 
on the World Trade Organization, or more recently, permanent most-
favored-nation status on China, which I happened to oppose at the last 
issue, as well as NAFTA, be kept, now that a vote has taken place in 
the House of Representatives.
  We need to ensure that we have adequate personnel so that we can 
enforce those promises, and to ensure that everyone is abiding by 
international trade statutes, U.S. trade statutes, so those in America 
who work for a living and who in 1998 made a nickel less for their 
average hour's worth of work than they did in 1980 are ensured that our 
departments are on the job and protecting their interests.
  I do thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $46,995,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
     dependent members of immediate families of employees 
     stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas; 
     travel and transportation of employees of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, 
     without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and 
     aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for 
     periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of alteration, 
     repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle; 
     obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and rental of 
     tie lines and teletype equipment, $321,448,000, to remain

[[Page 12122]]

     available until expended, of which $3,000,000 is to be 
     derived from fees to be retained and used by the 
     International Trade Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302: Provided, That $62,376,000 shall be for Trade 
     Development, $19,755,000 shall be for Market Access and 
     Compliance, $32,473,000 shall be for the Import 
     Administration, $194,638,000 shall be for the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service, and $12,206,000 shall be for 
     Executive Direction and Administration: Provided further, 
     That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f ) 
     and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f ) and 
     2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these activities without 
     regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for 
     the purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions 
     of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall 
     include payment for assessments for services provided as part 
     of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law, 
     $53,833,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,870,000 shall be for inspections and other activities 
     related to national security: Provided, That the provisions 
     of the first sentence of section 105(f ) and all of section 
     108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f ) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying 
     out these activities: Provided further, That payments and 
     contributions collected and accepted for materials or 
     services provided as part of such activities may be retained 
     for use in covering the cost of such activities, and for 
     providing information to the public with respect to the 
     export administration and national security activities of the 
     Department of Commerce and other export control programs of 
     the United States and other governments: Provided further, 
     That no funds may be obligated or expended for processing 
     licenses for the export of satellites of United States origin 
     (including commercial satellites and satellite components) to 
     the People's Republic of China, unless, at least 15 days in 
     advance, the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate 
     committees of the Congress are notified of such proposed 
     action.

                  Economic Development Administration


                Economic Development Assistance Programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, and for trade adjustment assistance, $361,879,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 43, line 24, before the period insert ``: Provided, 
     That of these funds, such sums as may be necessary may be 
     used to assist, under the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965, communities adversely affected by 
     the implementation of permanent normal trade relations with 
     China''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment 
that operates under the existing authorization and depends upon funds 
already in the bill.
  Essentially, it says that if there is a community that loses its jobs 
to China, they have a right to be covered under the assistance programs 
offered by the Economic Development Administration, just as much as any 
community in America that might lose jobs to Mexico or to Honduras or 
to Taiwan. Currently all of these programs at the Department of 
Commerce are available under EDA for assistance to communities that 
have lost jobs.
  Unfortunately, when China permanent normal trade relations was passed 
here a couple of weeks ago, there were no provisions in that bill, 
unlike NAFTA, for adjustment assistance to communities and individuals 
who will be harmed by that measure.
  In fact, the U.S. International Trade Commission, an entity of our 
own government, estimates that the new agreement with China will 
eliminate more than 870,000 jobs in our country, more than three-
quarters of a million jobs. Communities will be imploded from north to 
east, south, west, all across this country.
  The amendment we are proposing operates out of such sums as may be 
necessary, basically using the existing authority within the bill. It 
does not set aside funds just for China, but it says, do not forget 
communities that will be harmed by the loss of jobs to China.
  I would also remind my colleagues that in the report accompanying the 
bill, the following is stated:

       The committee expects the Economic Development 
     Administration to continue its efforts to assist communities 
     impacted by economic dislocations related to all industry 
     downswings and timber industry downturns due to environmental 
     concerns at no less than the current level of effort; in 
     other words, to assist communities that are hurt, regardless 
     of the industry.

  We certainly expect adverse impacts from the China vote. There will 
be beneficiaries of that vote, but for those communities that will be 
hurt, there is absolutely no reason not to allow those communities to 
be assisted through the Economic Development Administration.
  If Members come from an area that knows what happened with NAFTA, 
then they have to support this amendment, because they need to prepare 
for what is likely to be coming as a result of normalizing relations 
with China.
  For the record, let me state that this title includes $361,879,000 
for the Economic Development Administration. That is $45 million below 
the administration's request, but within the committee bill itself 
there is $10,500,000 that is specifically identified in the report also 
for trade adjustment assistance.
  We would hope that for those communities that will lose their jobs to 
China, that that trade adjustment assistance contained in this measure 
would also be available to those communities that are impacted, just as 
it would be if a community loses its jobs to Mexico, as has happened in 
so many places across the country, or to Taiwan.
  It does not matter where, but we should not exclude China. One of the 
most glaring omissions of the China debate here in the Congress was the 
fact that there is no reporting required of where jobs are moved from 
and to, there is no eligibility for dislocated workers, and no funds 
specifically set aside, as we did under NAFTA.
  Now, unless we pass this amendment, we are going to be saying that we 
do not give the Department of Commerce's Economic Development 
Administration permission within existing authority and existing funds 
to assist those communities that will be heavily impacted by, as the 
International Trade Commission says, a loss of over 870,000 jobs to 
China in the near term.
  So I think it would be very shortsighted not to pass this amendment. 
I would beg of the chairman of the subcommittee to give full 
consideration.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I also 
have the same concern the gentlewoman has about job losses under PNTR. 
I think the amendment is an excellent one, and commend it to all of my 
colleagues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the gentleman very much for his support.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to 
note, when we look at this issue that the gentlewoman is bringing 
before us today, that the central issue on permanent normal trade 
relations to China

[[Page 12123]]

was blurred. Time and again people talked about, well, this is a trade 
issue.
  Well, in fact, the central core of permanent normal trade relations 
is a subsidy in the bill, and within that is the concept of that type 
of trade relation with China, in which we actually subsidize, with 
taxpayer dollars, through the Export-Import Bank and other government 
institutions, those businessmen that are investing in China.

                              {time}  1130

  In other words, a businessman who closes a factory here or refrains 
from investing in building jobs here and goes to Communist China can 
expect the Export-Import Bank and other taxpayer subsidies to, for 
example, give them a lower interest rate or guarantee their loans. And 
if we are doing that with taxpayer dollars, at least let us watch out 
for the American people who are paying for that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his support on the amendment and would beg of the chairman 
inclusion of this amendment in the committee bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a 
ruling of the Chair.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I could not hear the gentleman. Could he please repeat 
his objection to including China under the eligible programs for 
communities in America that will be excluded from coverage?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just merely asked if the gentleman could 
repeat what he said. I could not hear him with the din in the Chamber.
  Mr. ROGERS. The reason that I asked for a ruling was that this 
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I do wish to be heard on the point of order, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I would just ask the chairman of the subcommittee, then, by what he 
has said to me in refusing to accept our amendment, is the gentleman 
saying that if a community, like Salina, Ohio, loses jobs to China, 
Huffy Bicycle moved to China----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Ms. KAPTUR. That that community will not be eligible for EDA 
assistance----
  The CHAIRMAN. The argument on the point of order should be directed 
to the Chair and not toward the chairman.
  The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the Chair for reminding me of that. I would like 
to ask the Chair, does this mean, then, that if a community loses jobs 
to China, 2,000 people in Salina, Ohio, out of work because Huffy 
Bicycle moved to China, that that community would not be eligible for 
Economic Development Administration assistance? Is that the effect of 
the gentleman's rejection of my request to include this amendment in 
the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any further Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of 
persuasion on a question whether it is supported by an authorization in 
law. Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the 
point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation in question is authorized by law. The Chair is, 
therefore, constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 2(a) 
of rule XXI.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $26,499,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency 
     Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     Minority Business Development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $27,314,000.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $49,499,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002.


                 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Coble

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

       Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Coble:
       Page 44, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $133,808,000)''.
       Page 48, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $133,808,000)''.
       Page 73, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $98,808,000)''.

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, protection that the United States Patent 
Office offers to America's high-tech products protects the markets of 
their creators in this country and form the basis for obtaining patent 
protection abroad to allow these products to enter and compete in 
foreign markets, in other words, Mr. Chairman, creating high-wage jobs 
and promoting American exports.
  Now, I had planned to reduce this bill by less than 1/2 of 1 percent 
across the board. I repeat, less than 1/2 of 1 percent was my initial 
goal. The parliamentarians ruled that out of order. And I am not being 
critical of the parliamentarians, they were simply doing their work, 
but by doing their work they forced me to then pick and choose; and 
that is what I had to do.
  My amendment would increase funding for the Patent and Trademark 
Office by $133,808,000, which would bring the appropriations for the 
agency in line with the President's budget submission. This is, by our 
calculations, still $113 million short of what the PTO's budget should 
be based on its incoming fee revenue. The amendment is balanced by the 
spending reduction in other areas, which the Congressional Budget 
Office has assured us is neutral with respect to budget authority and 
outlays.
  I have great respect for the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky 
and his able ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from New York. 
They worked very favorably with us on this, and I acknowledge the 
difficulties which they and others have faced in bringing this bill to 
the floor. That said, however, I emphatically believe that the Patent 
and Trademark Office is a Federal priority that contributes in an 
overwhelmingly positive way to our national economy.
  The mark in this bill simply does not do the agency justice, 
especially in light of the fact that patent applications are increasing 
by 12 percent and trademark filings by another 40 percent. Given this 
workload, and the current funding level contemplated by H.R. 4690, the 
agency will be forced to deal with manpower shortages and delays in 
implementing modernization efforts. Patents and trademarks will issue 
more slowly, which will cost this country profits, growth and jobs.
  My amendment is important to the American high-tech industry, the e-
commerce revolution that is driving the United States economy. While I 
would prefer that this agency be allowed to retain all of the fees 
which it collects from its operations, I am willing to accept the 
current figure with my amendment. Again, with my amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, the PTO is still denied another $113 million, which it is 
expected to generate in user fees in fiscal year 2001.

[[Page 12124]]

  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should note that the Information Technology 
Industry Council is scoring this vote in its high-tech voting guide, 
and I will be submitting for the Record ITI correspondence, along with 
other letters of support, including those from the ABA and the National 
Association of Manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may finally say to my colleagues, we all need to 
know how many tax dollars are in the PTO. Not one brown penny. They are 
all user fees to be used exclusively to maintain and operate the Patent 
and Trademark Office.
  Mr. Chairman, the documents I just referred to are as follows:
                                            Information Technology


                                             Industry Council,

                                                    June 21, 2000.
     Hon. Howard Coble,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 
         House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Coble: I am writing to thank you for 
     sponsoring an amendment to reverse the Appropriations 
     Committee's diversion of an additional $134 million in Patent 
     and Trademark Office (PTO) user fees over and above the $113 
     million already diverted in the Administration's budget 
     request. ITI anticipates scoring the amendment in our High 
     Tech Voting Guide.
       ITI is the association of leading U.S. providers of 
     information technology products and services. We advocate 
     growing the economy through innovation and support free-
     market policies. ITI members had worldwide revenues exceeding 
     $460 billion in 1999 and employ more than 1.2 million people 
     in the United States. We use the High-Tech Voting Guide to 
     measure Congressional support for the information technology 
     industry and policies that foster the success of the digital 
     economy. At the end of the 106th Congress, key votes will be 
     analyzed to assign a ``score'' to every Member of Congress.
       ITI's member companies already oppose the now longstanding 
     practice of diverting PTO user fees into the general treasury 
     and using a self-funding agency to subsidize other government 
     operations. Unfortunately, the additional diversions approved 
     last week by the Appropriations Committee will effectively 
     cut 25% of the PTO's budget when the number of patent 
     applications is growing at an unprecedented rate. The 
     resulting increases in application pendency and decreases in 
     quality of patents issued will act like a bottleneck on the 
     new economy, especially in the growth areas of software and 
     e-commerce inventions.
       We urge all Members of Congress to support innovation in 
     the new economy by voting for your amendment. Thank you for 
     your leadership and please do not hesitate to contact ITI if 
     we can be of assistance.
           Best regards,
                                                     Phillip Bond,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                    American Intellectual Property


                                              Law Association,

                                      Arlington, VA, June 9, 2000.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
         Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, The 
         Capitol, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the more than 
     10,000 lawyers of the American Intellectual Property Law 
     Association to express outrage over the action taken by your 
     Subcommittee Tuesday evening which takes $295 million dollars 
     of fee revenues to be collected by the United States Patent 
     and Trademark Office in FY 2001 and uses these monies to fund 
     totally unrelated federal and state programs.
       The $295 million that the Subcommittee mark will take from 
     the Office will come from fees paid by patent and trademark 
     applicants. This is not denying a taxpayer funded agency its 
     requested budget; it is taking fees paid by applicants to 
     receive services. Moreover, it is 25% of the total fee 
     revenues that will be collected by the USPTO in fiscal year 
     2001!
       The USPTO has received no taxpayer support since 1991. The 
     Congress imposed enormous fee increases on patent and 
     trademark applicants, ostensibly as a means of ensuring the 
     continued vitality of the system. The large and small 
     companies and individual inventors who reluctantly accepted 
     those huge fee increases were told that the increased 
     revenues would be used to reduce pendency, improve quality, 
     and make the Office the envy of the industrialized world. 
     Instead, the Office will have $295 million of its fiscal year 
     2001 fee revenues spent elsewhere, only being allowed to keep 
     an increase over this year's inadequate funding of less than 
     4%--hardly enough to cover inflation. This paltry, token 
     increase does not begin to take into account the facts that:
       Patent application filings are up 14%;
       Trademark application filings are up 42%; and
       The Office is faced with implementing the most sweeping 
     changes in the patent law in the last 50 years.
       Notwithstanding these and other significant new demands on 
     the USPTO's scarce resources, the Subcommittee's mark ensures 
     that the already rising patent and trademark pendencies will 
     continue their steady upward spiral. It is inconceivable that 
     the Congress of the United States would take steps to 
     undermine the engine of prosperity that the patent and 
     trademark systems repesent, risking the unprecedented 
     economic growth and jobs creation enjoyed by this great 
     Nation during the last decade.
       In the press release announcing the Subcommittee's action, 
     you are quoted as stating that the CJS Appropriations Bill 
     increases ``funding for key national priorities'' and ``gives 
     no ground in the federal war against crime and drugs.'' I 
     would submit that Tuesday's Subcommittee mark declares war on 
     the patent and trademark systems. This action by the 
     Subcommittee is surely cutting off the blood supply of 
     resources to the USPTO--at a time when the United States is 
     enjoying its greatest budget surplus in the last 30 years.
       The wealth generation and positive trade balance from the 
     export of high technology goods and services depend on 
     vibrant, robust patent and trademark systems. The benefits of 
     these systems cannot be assumed or taken for granted. 
     Allowing their decay will reduce high-wage jobs and high-tech 
     exports, and will ultimately reduce the tax revenue that is 
     the foundation for a srong and prosperous Nation. We urge you 
     to reconsider the funding for the USPTO when the CJS spending 
     bill is taken up at the full Appropriations Committee mark-
     up. America's creative community demands and deserves such 
     fair and equitable treatment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michael K. Kirk,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      Intellectual Property Owners


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2000.
     Re vote for Coble amendment to increase funding for U.S. 
         Patent and Trademark Office in Commerce-Justice-State 
         Appropriations bill, H.R. 4690.

     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert: Our association strongly urges you to 
     vote for the amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State bill 
     that will be offered to day or tomorrow by Rep. Howard Coble. 
     This amendment to free up an additional $134 million in 
     patent and trademark fees for use by the Patent and Trademark 
     Office (PTO) is critically important to hi-tech, biotech and 
     many other industries that depend on patent and trademark 
     rights.
       Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) represents 
     companies and individuals who own patents, trademarks, 
     copyrights and trade secrets. Our members obtain about 30 
     percent of patents that are granted to U.S. nationals and 
     federally register thousands of trademarks each year. They 
     pay around $200 million a year in user fees to the PTO. Our 
     members are largely technology-based and consumer products 
     firms.
       The drastic cut in funding for the PTO in the Commerce-
     Justice-State bill threatens the quality of patent examining 
     and will cause pendency times for patent and trademark 
     applications to rise to unacceptable levels. Patent workload 
     is up 14 percent this year and trademark workload is up an 
     unprecedented 40 percent. Even at the President's request 
     level, average patent application pendency will rise to 31.7 
     months by 2005--a 52 percent increase in delay since 1996 
     that will cripple our members who rely on patenting their 
     technology to help them compete in today's fast changing 
     economy.
       The Coble amendment is an important step toward restoring 
     adequate funding for the PTO. We hope you will vote for it.
           Sincerely,
                                               Herbert C. Wamsley,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           International Trademark


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2000.
     ATTN: CJS Appropriations Staff Person.

       Dear Member of Congress: As President of the International 
     Trademark Association (INTA), I ask for your support on an 
     issue of serious concern to our members. The Commerce, 
     Justice, State (CJS) FY 2001 Appropriations bill, which you 
     will begin considering later today, contains an allocation 
     for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that in effect 
     diverts $295 million in fees paid to the agency. This 
     reduction will have a direct, immediate and devastating 
     impact on the ability of the PTO to do its job.
       Never before has the role of the PTO been so important or 
     the challenges facing the agency been more demanding. In a 
     thriving, technology-based economy, new products and services 
     enter the market at a breakneck pace. It is essential that 
     the PTO have the resources to support and sustain this 
     economic boom. If the PTO lacks the examiners or the 
     technology to conduct a thorough and efficient examination of 
     the hundreds of thousands of trademark applications filed 
     each year, this has tangible consequences for U.S. companies, 
     as product launches are delayed and competitive opportunities 
     lost. The government cannot allow itself to be a drag on this 
     otherwise flourishing environment.

[[Page 12125]]

       Indeed, Congress recognized this very fact last year when 
     they passed landmark legislation to restructure and 
     streamline the PTO, giving it greater autonomy and loosening 
     the bureaucratic restrictions that hindered its ability to 
     perform its business-oriented mission in a more business-like 
     way. These changes--valuable as they are--mean little if 
     Congress now denies PTO the resources to perform efficiently.
       A point we have made many times before bears repeating: 
     this is NOT taxpayer money that is being taken from the PTO. 
     Every penny is derived from fees paid by intellectual 
     property owners for services to be rendered by the PTO. The 
     PTO can no longer be treated as a convenient ``cash cow'' to 
     remedy budget shortages elsewhere in the government. We ask 
     you to support an amendment by Rep. Howard Coble to restore 
     the diverted user fees to the PTO.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Kim Miller,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 2000.
     Hon. C. W. ``Bill'' Young,
     House Appropriations Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Young: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM) again protests the withholding or 
     diversion of fees paid by inventors to the Patent and 
     Trademark Office (PTO). The NAM--18 million people who make 
     things in America--is the nation's largest and oldest multi-
     industry trade association. The NAM represents 14,000 member 
     companies (including 10,000 small and mid-sized companies) 
     and 350 member associations serving manufacturers and 
     employees in every industrial sector and all 50 states.
       At the Appropriations Committee markup tomorrow, the NAM 
     urges you to put all the fees collected by the PTO to their 
     only defensible use: serving the agency's fee-paying 
     customers. Failure to do so will produce the following 
     effects:
       Continuing the hidden tax on inventors. Worse, this bad 
     U.S. practice undermines U.S. business leaders in their 
     attempts to remove or reduce even higher hidden taxes on U.S. 
     patent holders around the world.
       Hurting the timeliness or quality of patents, or both. 
     Already, it usually takes as long to issue a patent as for 
     the semiconductor industry to develop a next-generation 
     product. That's too long. Taking away fees only makes matters 
     worse. At a time when the agency's workload is growing fast--
     patent applications are up 12 percent this year and trademark 
     applications are up 40 percent--it must keep all the fees 
     just to stay abreast of the huge workload.
       Undermining implementation of last year's patent 
     legislation, the most significant in half a century.
       Undermining the plan of entirely self-funding patent and 
     trademark operations. Until a decade ago, Congress had to 
     appropriate tax dollars partially to fund the patent and 
     trademark system. But if Congress continues to treat the PTO 
     as a cash cow, it may need to bail the agency out with tax 
     dollars in the future.
       For all these reasons, the NAM joined almost 20 other trade 
     and professional associations in writing to you two months 
     ago, urging you to end to the harmful practice of taking 
     money away from the PTO. Most regrettably, last week the 
     Commerce, State, Justice, and Judiciary Subcommittee 
     evidently decided to withhold even more money than already 
     proposed in the Administration's budget (documentation has 
     not been publicly available).
       Voting to do so entails accepting responsibility for 
     deterioration of the patent system at a time when technology 
     is fueling the nation's economic growth. It would be hard to 
     imagine a more shortsighted financial maneuver. The NAM urges 
     you to reconsider the unwise diversion of patent and 
     trademark fees.
           Sincerely,

                                             Franklin J. Vargo

                                                   Vice President,
     International Economic Affairs.
                                  ____

         American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual 
           Property Law,
                                        Chicago, IL, June 9, 2000.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Appropriations is 
     scheduled to mark-up the Commerce, Justice, State and 
     Judiciary appropriations bill on June 13. I am writing on 
     behalf of the Section of Intellectual Property Law of the 
     American Bar Association to express opposition to provisions 
     in the bill as reported by the Subcommittee which deny 
     authority for the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
     (USPTO) to spend user fees to be collected in Fiscal Year 
     2001
       The views expressed in this letter are those of the Section 
     of Intellectual Property Law. They have not been submitted to 
     nor approved by the ABA House of Delegates or Board of 
     Governors and should not, therefore, be construed as 
     representing policy of the American Bar Association.
       The Section of Intellectual Property Law opposes denying 
     the USPTO authority to utilize, in the year in which 
     collected, any of the revenue derived from user fees paid to 
     fund the services provided by the Office. While we oppose any 
     and all such withholding of user fees, we most strongly 
     oppose the extreme degree to which the denial of user fees 
     has been taken in the bill as reported by the Subcommittee.
       The President's budget proposal calls for withholding form 
     USPTO use $368 million in user fees to be collected in FY 
     2001. After adjusting for authority to spend in FY 2001 user 
     fees collected in previous years, the President's proposal 
     still provides a funding shortfall of $113 million based on 
     anticipated user fee collections. User fees are set by law so 
     as to produce the revenue needed to fund the services of the 
     USPTO, and the withholding of over $100 million--about ten 
     percent of funding needed to run the Office--seriously 
     jeopardizes the ability of the USPTO to support the vital 
     areas of our economy which the Office serves.
       While the President's proposal is dangerous and damaging, 
     the Subcommittee's recommendation is disastrous. It proposes 
     withholding still an additional $182 million, consisting of 
     4134 million more from collections as projected in the 
     President's proposal, plus $48 million in additional fee 
     revenue resulting from the expanded demand for the services 
     of the Office, The net result would be funding for the USPTO 
     at a level that is 25% less than the fees collected to run 
     the Office.
       The House Judiciary Committee, the authorizing Committee 
     for the USPTO, asked the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Intellectual Property for his assessment of the impact of the 
     funding cuts proposed by the Subcommittee. His response is 
     frightening. All hiring would have to be stopped. This 
     includes not only expansion hiring to accommodate the ever 
     growing demand for services, but also replacement hiring. As 
     a result of such staffing reductions, services would be 
     drastically slowed and reduced. The time delay in acting on 
     trademark applications is expected to double, and action on 
     patent applications would be slowed by one-third. Reduction 
     and delay in services will result in a reduction in fee 
     revenue, setting off a downward spiral that could be 
     devastating to technological and innovative sectors which are 
     so vital to our nation's economic and social health.
       We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject these 
     crippling funding cuts, and to provide the USPTO funding 
     equal to the fee revenue collected to run the Office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gregory J. Maier,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                                    June 22, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert: The future competitive strength of 
     the American economy depends upon the robustness of our high 
     technology industries, and those industries in turn depend 
     upon a strong patent and trademark system to secure property 
     rights in new technologies both here and abroad. Recognizing 
     this, Congress last year approved sweeping patent reform 
     legislation designed to strengthen the rights of inventors, 
     implement cost-efficient dispute resolution procedures, and 
     facilitate implementation of ``best management'' principles 
     at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
       These reforms were enacted into law at a critical time. 
     However, what Congress has given with one hand, Congress is 
     attempting to take way with the other through the 
     appropriations process. We urge you to support restoration of 
     the President's mark on the PTO budget, and to work with us 
     to permanently end fee withholding so that the PTO may make 
     full advantage of the process and structural improvements 
     that Congress wisely enacted into law last year.
       The PTO--now a fully user-fee-funded agency--is facing 
     dramatically increasing demand for its services from 
     inventors seeking patents, and entrepreneurs seeking 
     protection for trademarks. In the last year, patent 
     applications were up 14% and trademark applications were up 
     40%. In this environment, the quality and timeliness of 
     examinations are directly related to the level of resources 
     available hiring and training qualified examiners and 
     implementing more advanced search tools. One of the 
     objectives of the President's proposed FY '01 PTO budget is 
     ensuring that the agency has the resources needed to reduce 
     average patent ``pendency''--the time it takes to process the 
     typical application--from 25 months (today's figure) to 20 
     months. In 1990, pendency stood at 18 months.
       Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee's FY '01 PTO 
     mark proposes to withhold almost $295 million in fee 
     resources that will be collected in the next fiscal year, 
     making it impossible to achieve this goal. The fee 
     withholdings--begun in 1991 as a deficit reduction measure--
     to date total $564 million. Withholding PTO user fees in 
     order to score ``savings'' in the budget may be penny wise 
     but is pound foolish when considered against the damage to 
     our patent and trademark system.

[[Page 12126]]

       Both timeliness and quality of examination are already 
     deteriorating due to the accumulated deficit of resources. 
     These trends will only worsen under the Committee mark. The 
     PTO today faces growing pendency (which will soon exceed 30 
     months), inadequate staff, and the need to improve its 
     methods. More and better-trained examiners, improved 
     databases, and innovations such as online processing and 
     examination of applications are critical needs. Such measures 
     are all the more important as the PTO is required to deal 
     with new and complex areas of patent activity, such as 
     business method and software patents. Withholding PTO fees 
     prevents such improvements.
       Thank you for your attention to this issue.
           Sincerely,
         William T. Archey, President and CEO, American 
           Electronics Association; Harris Miller, President, 
           Information Technology Association of America; Rhett B. 
           Dawson, President, Information Technology Industry 
           Council; George Scalise, President, Semiconductor 
           Industry Association; Ken Wasch, President, Software & 
           Information Industry Association; Matthew J. Flanigan, 
           President, Telecommunications Industry Association.
                                  ____

                                             The National Treasury


                                              Employees Union,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
     ------ ------,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative ------: NTEU, which represents many of 
     the employees at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), is 
     extremely distressed at the Draconian cut of $134 million 
     from the Administration's budget proposal made by the 
     Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations Subcommittee. This 
     severe budget cut will do great harm to the PTO's mission and 
     productivity. We understand Representative Howard Coble (R-
     NC) may offer an amendment to restore this funding. We ask 
     you to vote YES on the Coble amendment.
       As a fee-funded agency, PTO should have access to the fees 
     it collects and PTO customers should have the service they 
     are paying for. The diversion of these funds is simply wrong 
     and unfair. The House should set PTO funding equivalent to 
     the amount of fees collected and stop siphoning off these 
     funds.
       PTO is a growing agency that has struggled with limited 
     resources to meet the highest standards of customer service. 
     With patent and trademark applications rising this year by 
     12% and 40%, respectively, American inventors cannot afford 
     to have their applications deferred, delayed and denied as 
     they fuel the economic engine keeping our nation productive.
       The reduced funding will force PTO to implement a hiring 
     freeze which will mean that rather than reducing the time to 
     process an application as American industry has demanded, 
     pendency rates will skyrocket. Furthermore, these cuts will 
     cripple the ability to implement PTO's e-commerce program. 
     Rather than improve efficiency and lower pendency periods by 
     electronic filing, the proposed appropriation will wreak 
     havoc on this innovative and pro-inventor initiative.
       It is an issue of human dignity to be able to lay claim to 
     the fruits of one's intellect. Patents and trademarks are the 
     institutional protection of intellectual property rights. The 
     proposed appropriation denies this right to tens of thousands 
     of American inventors. Our Union would appreciate your 
     support on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Colleen M. Kelley,
     National President.
                                  ____



                                         Agilent Technologies,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.
     Hon. Martin T. Meehan,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

     Re: Coble Amendment to the Commerce, State, & Justice 
         Appropriations bill
       Dear Representative Meehan: We write to express our strong 
     opposition to the Commerce, State & Justice (CSJ) 
     Appropriations bill that, we believe, will have a profound 
     negative impact upon all U.S. innovators and companies who 
     rely upon an efficient patent system to secure and protect 
     intellectual property. We urge you to support us in taking 
     action to prevent the slowdown in technological progress and 
     economic gains that may result if the CSJ Appropriations bill 
     is passed in its current form.
       On June 14, the Appropriations Committee gave its approval 
     to the CSJ appropriations bill, which includes the 
     appropriation for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 
     The President's FY 2001 Budget proposed withholding $113 
     million of the fees paid by the users of the PTO's services. 
     The current allocation diverts $295 million of these fees 
     away from the PTO and to taxpayer funded ventures. The 
     repercussions of withholding $295 million will be 
     devastating, as it accounts for 25% of the agency's income. 
     The potential for decreased quality and efficiency in the PTO 
     is great, due to the possibility that: A freeze on hiring and 
     overtime pay for current staff might tempt patent examiners, 
     trademark lawyers and others to leave the patent office. The 
     imposition of restrictions on training for examiners and 
     administrators. Waiting periods on first actions on patent 
     applications, will increase from 11 months to 15 and for 
     trademark applications from 4.5 months to 8. 150,000 patents 
     may be rejected for an initial examination, not allowed or 
     not issued at all. Planned electronic filing of patent 
     applications may be reduced or eliminated.
       Agilent Technologies is very concerned about this threat to 
     innovational productivity. To this end. Representative Howard 
     Coble is sponsoring an amendment to the CSJ appropriations 
     bill that will be presented to the full House. The amendment 
     would restore funding to the $1039 million level proposed by 
     the Administration. Although this remains below FY 2000 
     levels, the restoration of some funds will help to reduce the 
     possibility of negative outcomes outlined above.
       Never before has the role of the PTO been so critical or 
     the challenges confronting the agency been more demanding. In 
     a thriving, technology-based economy, new products and 
     services enter the market at a rapid pace. It is imperative 
     that the PTO has the resources and support to maintain this 
     economic boom.
       Agilent Technologies is a diversified technology company 
     dependent on new technologies and expanding markets. We urge 
     you to support technology and innovation in all areas by 
     voting in favor of a partial restoration of PTO funding 
     through the Coble Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Frank Orlandella,
     Director, Federal Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                                      PEPSICO,

                                      Purchase, NY, June 22, 2000.
     Hon. Howard Coble,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

     Re: PTO User Fees
       Dear Representative Coble: I am writing on behalf of 
     PepsiCo, Inc. to express our strong support for your proposed 
     amendment to the Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill 
     for fiscal 2001, to restore 134 million in PTO user fees to 
     the PTO budget for 2001. We believe that the bill's proposed 
     diversion of 295 million in user fees paid to the PTO 
     threatens real harm to the PTO's ability to do its job and 
     must be reversed.
       Trademarks are vital to PepsiCo's business, and our user 
     fees to the PTO in any given year are substantial. Our 
     expectation in paying these fees is that they will be applied 
     to PTO purposes to maintain the highest standards of 
     operation and keep response times as short as possible. In an 
     economy that increasingly favors the swift and reliable 
     acquisition of intellectual property rights of all kinds, the 
     PTO's function is far too important to put at risk.
       PepsiCo urges you to take all appropriate action to restore 
     this funding to the PTO.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Elizabeth N. Bilus,
     Intellectual Property Counsel.
                                  ____



                                             Procter & Gamble,

     To: Hon. Howard Coble,
     cc: Herb Ribinson, Greensboro, NC
     From: Gordon F. Brunner, Chief Technology Officer
     Re: Support Coble Amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State 
       and Juddiciary Appropriations Bill
       I write to express my deep concern regarding recent actions 
     in the House Appropriations Committee that, I believe, will 
     have a profound negative impact upon all U.S. innovators who 
     reply upon an efficient patent system to secure and protect 
     intellectual property. For this reason, I urge you to support 
     the Coble amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State and 
     Judiciary Appropriations bill.
       The Appropriations Committee, on June 14, considered and 
     voted upon the Commerce, State, & Justice appropriations 
     bill, which includes the appropriation for the U.S. Patent 
     and Trademark Office. This bill based in principle upon the 
     President's budget submission continued what has now become a 
     persistent policy of withholding a substantial portion of 
     patent user fees in order to gain a scoring ``savings'' that 
     can be applied to the benefit of taxpayer funded programs.
       Procter & Gamble objected to this practice since it was 
     first employed to accommodate the requirements of deficit 
     reduction in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. 
     Nevertheless, the President's FY 2001 budget submission 
     proposed to withhold $113 million in fees on top of the $564 
     milllion that has been withheld to date. My company opposed 
     this proposal directly and through the various associations 
     that represent us. However, to our dismay, in its action on 
     the 14th, the Committee increased the total amount of the 
     withholdidng proposed in the President's budget. Under the 
     Committee mark, fees appropriated to the PTO would fall short 
     of actual collections by $295 million. This will not only 
     prevent the PTO from moving forward with important 
     improvements in patent and trademark search methodology and 
     tools, but will also result in degradation of existing 
     capabilities.
       Both timeliness and quality of examination are already 
     suffering due to the accumulated deficit of resources, and 
     the conditions

[[Page 12127]]

     will only worsen as a result of this action. The time it 
     takes to process the typical application has increased from a 
     historic low of 18 months in 1990 to 25 months today, and 
     will soon increase to 30 months. Patent applications for new 
     and complex technologies take even longer.
       The PTO is required to deal with rapidly growing numbers of 
     applications in diverse and intricate areas of research and 
     discovery. The need to hire and train more examiners--and 
     improve the search tools available to them--is critical. The 
     issue is not merely one of providing ``more money'', but 
     rather giving the PTO the benefit of the fee resources that 
     are intended to fund the needs of the PTO.
       Withholding patent user fees from the PTO is nothing less 
     than a tax on innovation, as the PTO is fully user-fee-
     funded.
       You can reverse this trend by supporting the Coble 
     amendment to the Commeerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
     Appropriations bill.
                                  ____



                                              Rohm & Haas Co.,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 14, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I wanted to register the strong concern 
     of Rohm and Haas Company over an action by the House 
     Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee to divert 
     almost $300 million of Patent Office funding to unrelated 
     governmental programs.
       We are a research oriented company that relies upon a 
     smooth functioning Patent Office to sustain our 
     competitiveness. This level of diversion could erode the 
     quality of patent examinations and cause delays in the 
     issuance of patents and trademarks. The U.S. Patent Office is 
     a user fee funded agency and should not be used as a source 
     of funds for federal programs that do not otherwise meet 
     spending caps.
       I respectfully request your support for maintaining a 
     properly funded Patent Office and not to divert its funds for 
     other purposes. Thanks for your consideration and please feel 
     free to contact me with any questions or comments.
           Sincerely,
                                              Geoffrey B. Hurwitz,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____

     To: The Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman of the House Justice-
         State Appropriations Subcommittee, The Hon. C.Y. (Bill) 
         Young, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee.

     Cc: Members of the House of Representatives.

     Date: June 12, 2000.

     From: Edwin A. Suominen, Registered Patent Agent, Independent 
         Inventor (Four U.S. Patents, additional patents pending.)

       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are now enjoying record prosperity 
     and budget surpluses thanks in large part to the phenomenal 
     development of America's technology sector. Continuing this 
     development requires a strong and fair patent system that 
     protects new and exciting technologies while ensuring that 
     those technologies are truly deserving of patent protection.
       Please do not kill the goose that is laying the golden 
     eggs! The subcommittee's proposed $300 million diversion of 
     one fourth of all fees paid by patent applicants, an increase 
     to unprecedented and impossibly burdensome levels, will be a 
     hidden ``technology tax'' that will limit resources available 
     for patent examination. Q. Todd Dickinson, the Director of 
     the U.S. Patent Office, warns us that ``the last time we 
     endured funding shortfalls and freezes of this magnitude, the 
     recovery took over a decade.''
       Someday, we could wind up turning a regretful eye back to 
     the days of our surging high-tech economy and realize that we 
     paid a very steep price for diverting $300 million from our 
     patent examining operations. Crippling the operations of our 
     patent office, and the consequent damage to our patent 
     system, could wind up being the pinch of sand that ultimately 
     grinds our high-tech economic miracle to a halt.
       Do not let this happen! Allow the Patent Office to 
     continue, unhindered by this proposed ``technology tax,'' to 
     carry out its mission, as authorized by Congress under the 
     encouraging words of the U.S. Constitution to ``promote the 
     Progress of Science and useful Arts.''
       Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may 
     have.
           Respectfully,
     Edwin A. Suominen.
                                  ____

                                              United States Patent


                                         and Trademark Office,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2000.
     Hon. Howard Coble,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 
         Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Howard Berman,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
         Property, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Berman: Thank you for your 
     request for information on the impact that the recent House 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
     the Judiciary mark-up for fiscal year 2001 will have on the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its 
     customers.
       As you know, the importance of intellectual property has 
     increased exponentially in the last decade, and the USPTO has 
     been a major factor in the Nation's ability to support the 
     current high technology growth boom. This year alone, patent 
     and trademark filings are increasing at a dramatic rate--a 
     40% increase in trademark application filings and a 12% 
     increase in patent application filings.
       All of our revenues, projected to be $1.2 billion in fiscal 
     year 2001, are paid as fees by the knowledge-based high-tech 
     leaders and individual entrepreneurs who rely on us to help 
     them flourish in this economy. We are no burden to the 
     American taxpayer. Moreover, we use activity-based cost 
     management principles. Our fee revenues related directly to 
     the work we do. We do not ``have a surplus'' or ``make a 
     profit''.
       The proposed mark would seriously impair our ability to 
     effectively manage our operations and provide our customers 
     with the quality products and services they expect and 
     deserve. Since the mark would fund us at $904.9 million, or 
     about 25% less than the total fees paid by our customers, we 
     would be forced to make significant modifications in our 
     operations.
       Specifically, we have preliminarily determined that we 
     would have to take the following actions:


             freeze hiring and reduce issuance and printing

       We would be forced to freeze hiring and eliminate overtime 
     for all staff, thereby reducing costs by $56 million. This 
     means we would not hire or replace over 1,000 staff members, 
     including more than 600 patent examiners and trademark 
     examining attorneys. In an agency such as ours, where the 
     workload has grown by almost 75% since 1992, such actions 
     would be extraordinarily counter-productive. We would also be 
     forced to reduce spending on the preparation and printing of 
     patents and trademark registrations by about $12 million.
       According to our current estimates, this would result in 
     more than 48,000 patent applications being denied an initial 
     examination, 34,000 patents not being allowed, and an 
     additional 68,000 patents actually not issuing. In addition, 
     approximately 60,000 trademark registrations would not issue.
       Additionally, the time it takes us to render a first action 
     on the merits of both patent and trademark applications will 
     increase significantly. For trademark applications, the time 
     will almost double, from 4.5 months to 8 months; for patent 
     applications, it will increase by almost one-third, from 11.9 
     months to 15.8 months.
       Our appellate processes would also suffer. For example, the 
     time it takes to hear and render decisions at the Trademark 
     Trial and Appeal Board would almost double.
       For many businesses, especially high-tech, entrepreneurial 
     start-ups, intellectual property is often their principal 
     asset. Delays like these would significantly affect their 
     ability to protect those assets and grow their businesses, 
     potentially crippling critical sectors of the United States 
     economy.


                      negative impact on consumers

       Besides negatively impacting patent and trademark owners, 
     the American consumer may also be adversely affected. Since 
     delays in examination and issuance would result in an 
     extension of patent term under the American Inventor's 
     Protection Act, these budget cuts could also unnecessarily 
     prolong the terms of many patents, potentially driving up 
     costs to all Americans, in such vital areas as health care 
     and pharmaceuticals.


   eliminate planned e-government initiatives and reduce existing it 
                               activities

       To be a viable organization in today's high technology 
     economy, the USPTO needs to conduct much more of its business 
     electronically. We are well on the way to doing so, most 
     notably, with our successful electronic trademark filing 
     system and the availability of our patent and trademark 
     databases via the Internet. Under the proposed mark, we would 
     have to make reductions in this area of $37 million, which 
     will force us to eliminate all new planned automation 
     projects and severely curtail many of our already successful 
     systems.
       Specifically, we will be forced to significantly reduce or 
     eliminate the planned electronic filing of patent 
     applications, on-line database searching (with a consequent 
     reduction in patent quality), our award-winning patents and 
     trademarks on the Internet program, our work-at-home program, 
     the electronic filing of assignments, and necessary upgrades 
     or planned replacements to basic examiner computer equipment. 
     We also would not be able to implement the replacement of our 
     PTONet, which is the critical backbone of our information 
     technology system, jeopardizing our entire operation.


        reduce quality initiatives and customer service programs

       As you also know, we make customer service and quality one 
     of our guiding principles here at the USPTO. Unfortunately, 
     under this proposed mark, our quality initiatives

[[Page 12128]]

     and customer service programs would have to be reduced by $29 
     million. This would likely result in the elimination of 
     support for the 87 Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries, 
     which are located in every state in the Union, as well as 
     drastically reduce support for the two public search 
     facilities located in Arlington, Virginia.
       Our successful quality management initiatives would be 
     dramatically curtailed, along with quality assurance programs 
     throughout the USPTO. Training for examiners and 
     administrative support staff would also have to be 
     significantly scaled back, if not eliminated. Finally, we 
     would be unable to implement the recommendations of the 
     Inspector General for increased staffing in our quality 
     review program areas.


                           workforce impacts

       Our workforce here at the USPTO is among the most highly 
     skilled and highly sought after in the New Economy, as well 
     as the Federal Government. Cuts in areas such as overtime and 
     training would severely weaken our ability to recruit and 
     retain the high caliber staff, which is essential to our 
     work.
       Thank you again for all your years of steadfast support for 
     all of us here at the United States Patent and Trademark 
     Office and for all of those inventors and entrepreneurs who 
     depend so heavily on our work. The intellectual property 
     system of the United States is the envy of the world. 
     Unfortunately, the cuts that would result from this proposed 
     mark-up would harm our system. The last time we endured 
     funding shortfalls and freezes of this magnitude, the 
     recovery took over a decade. I know you share our hope that 
     this does not happen again.
           Sincerely,
                                                Q. Todd Dickinson.
                                                         Director.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I rise in reluctant opposition simply because the offerer of the 
amendment is such a wonderful person and a great Representative and a 
great Chairman of the authorizing subcommittee dealing with the Patent 
and Trademark Office. But I have to oppose this amendment because it 
does enormous damage to the other agencies from which he seeks to take 
these monies.
  This amendment would slash the economic and statistical analysis part 
of the Department of Commerce by $10 million. That is a decrease to 
that small office of some 20 percent. And as my colleagues may or may 
not know, this office is the Nation's economic accountant. That is the 
office that develops measures and systems to collect the data from 
government and private sources to measure the Nation's gross domestic 
product and other economic indicators. Without that office being run at 
full staff, we would not know what the status of the American economy 
is.
  This bill provides $49 million for the ESA. We froze them at the 
current year level. And a decrease of 20 percent to this small office 
would seriously impact the country's ability to provide estimates of 
economic growth that everyone depends upon.
  Now, the amendment would also cut $40 million from the census and the 
program lines within the Bureau of the Census. A decrease of 30 percent 
would be crippling, and I do not think we want to cripple the census at 
this point, do we?
  But the most egregious cut would slash the Department of State 
Educational and Cultural Exchange program. It would cut it by almost in 
half, or $98.8 million cut. That would decimate things like the 
Fulbright Exchange Programs and the International Visitors Program. It 
would bring the international dialogue that is critical to American 
leadership in the world to a halt. This amendment would surely cause 
serious reductions in force, layoffs, in these agencies, and serious 
layoffs.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect and admiration and friendship for 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). He is one of the best 
friends I have in this body, and I think he does a wonderful job in the 
chairmanship of the subcommittee for us, but I have to strongly oppose 
these amendments that would slash the funding for the Nation's Economic 
Statistics Agency that does our gross national product and for the 
Department of State's Educational and Cultural Exchange Program, which 
includes the Fulbright Scholarship Program, and the other cuts that I 
have mentioned before.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to urge and strongly urge a rejection of this 
amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say that the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Greensboro, and my friend, the distinguished chairman of the important 
subcommittee that we are dealing with today, are two of my best friends 
in this institution, and I have been faced with a tough challenge, and 
that is I have to choose between two of my best friends. I know that 
conventional wisdom would say that I would come down on the side of the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, but I am going to have to 
break with conventional wisdom, Mr. Chairman, and strongly support my 
friend, the gentleman from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  If we look at the fact that 45 percent of the gross domestic product 
growth in our Nation over the past 5 years has come from the technology 
sector of our economy, we clearly are in a position where we need to 
realize that the quality of life, job creation, and economic growth has 
hinged on our very, very important need to engage in global trade. The 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the 
Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), 
has, I believe, stepped forward and offered a very balanced amendment.
  I am not supportive of the cuts in all the other areas that the 
chairman of the subcommittee has pointed out, but I do believe that we 
have a choice to make on our priorities; and I believe that the very 
important work that is done by the Patent and Trademark Office needs to 
be recognized and needs to be supported if we, as a Nation, are going 
to maintain our global competitiveness.
  So I simply want to say that it was a tough choice; but I have 
decided to support my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble), in this effort, because I clearly do believe that it is the 
right thing to do, and so I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, I would like to join the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to make a couple of points. 
The Patent and Trademark Office is one of the most efficient government 
agencies we have, and as a fully fee-funded organization, it takes no 
money from the Government and has come to be treated as a cash cow.
  This is incredible. Here is a successful organization that is having 
so far about $500 million diverted from it, and all we are trying to do 
is restore $134 million of it because it is hurting the ability of the 
Patent and Trademark Office to service the creators and the inventors 
who are responsible for the current technology boom.
  The combination of an increase in the number of patent applications 
and a reduction in resources has caused the time period for filing a 
patent and a final decision on it to grow from 19 months to 24 months 
in just a few years. And one reason for this is because many of the PTO 
examiners are leaving their government positions for more lucrative 
ones. The end result of this is that we could be losing our 
technological dominance in all of these important markets.
  So if the PTO retained its fees, it could hire more examiners, 
shorten the period of scrutiny, and maintain our dominance. So the 
question is, how do we accomplish it? The answer is that, although we 
tried a lot of different ways of doing it, we think that this Robin 
Hood-type method ought to be changed.
  So with this in mind, I support an amendment that returns $134 
million in user fees to the PTO. It is a very modest sum, considering 
that otherwise this important office would lose over $200 million of 
its funds. So let us support the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment in the full Committee on 
Appropriations. I had to withdraw it because there were no decent 
offsets, and there

[[Page 12129]]

still are not any decent offsets. The gentleman from North Carolina 
knows how I feel about that. I do not think he likes these offsets 
either, taking it out of statistical sampling in the Census Bureau and 
out of cultural exchange programs.
  The basic problem we are faced with is that we have a scorekeeping 
set of restrictions that are both arcane and inane. This is money that 
is paid by the users of this agency. They asked for us to put together 
an organization that was modern and efficient and professional so that 
our economy can continue to grow. This may be the Federal agency most 
responsible for the productivity, the innovation that is spurring our 
economic growth.

                              {time}  1145

  And what are we faced with? A situation where these people who have 
paid their user fees into this agency cannot even have that money used 
for the purpose for which it was intended. In fact, there is $295 
million that has been paid in in user fees, and this amendment does not 
even attempt to use all of that money.
  What it tries to do is restore the Patent and Trademark funding up to 
the President's request, which is $134 million more than what is in 
this appropriations bill.
  I do not like these offsets, but I also know that it is not right to 
be crippling the Patent and Trademark Office's ability to process the 
patents, the trademarks, the innovation that enable us to be the leader 
of the global economy.
  The reality is that the patents are now up by 12 percent, trademark 
applications are up by 42 percent. This bill has a 3 percent increase. 
We cannot keep pace with the demand.
  Now, if this was a slow economy, if we were in some kind of a 
recession, if capital markets were not looking for innovative ideas, 
then maybe things would slow down. But the Patent and Trademark Office 
is simply trying to keep up with the pace of this economy and we are 
putting the brakes on. That is what this does, puts the brakes on.
  So all we are trying to do is to enable Patent and Trademark to be 
able to at least partially meet the increased demand. When patents are 
up by more than 12 percent, trademarks are up by more than 42 percent, 
we ought to be able to increase to give a moderate increase in funding 
to the Patent and Trademark Office.
  As far as these offsets, as I say, the scorekeeping is arcane and 
inane, but I do think some rationality will be put into the 
appropriations process when we get into the conference. I am sure that 
the Senate is going to recognize that there ought to be some increase 
and that, in fact, the scorekeeping just does not make sense.
  If, however, this does not pass, then the PTO would be forced to 
operate with 25 percent less than the fees paid in by the users and it 
is going to cost much longer delay in the number of patents that are 
pending. That means that these companies and individuals cannot go out 
and get the kind of money they need to fund their new ideas, that 
people in other countries and competitors are going to be able to get 
the jump on them. But, most importantly, our economy is not going to be 
able to realize its full potential.
  So this is something that makes sense. Our scorekeeping does not make 
sense but, hopefully, we will be able to correct that.
  For that reason, I urge support of the amendment but with the caveat 
that I do so very reluctantly because these are lousy offsets. And I 
know that the gentleman suggesting this agrees that they are lousy 
offsets and we are going to have to fix that as the appropriations 
process moves forward.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Coble amendment to this 
bill. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Dickinson, the Patent and Trademark Office director, reports that 
this bill, unamended, would force the agency to institute a hiring 
freeze that would prevent the director from replacing roughly 600 
patent examiners and attorneys who are scheduled to leave the agency in 
fiscal year 2001.
  The director also reports that this funding level would increase the 
time required for PTO to process Patent and Trademark applications. 
Therefore, an additional 68,000 patents would be delayed until fiscal 
year 2002.
  We are talking about user fees. These are fees paid to the PTO. We 
are not asking to borrow from other sources, other funds. We are asking 
to retain the user fees collected by the PTO.
  I am certainly for a balanced budget. And Congress has to set 
priorities, but this is not a good priority. This Patent and Trademark 
Office facilitates the economy in a way that other agencies cannot. It 
is important that we retain our technological edge. It is important 
that inventors and developers get the protection they need to encourage 
the innovation and the creativity and the invention. This is penny wise 
and pound foolish.
  Do not hobble this agency. This is one of the most useful productive 
agencies in Government. And by allowing it to retain an additional $133 
million in fee income, this at least allows the PTO to tread water, if 
not to make progress.
  So I strongly suggest the priority which suggests it is useful to cut 
funds from the Patent and Trademark Office is wrong, that we need to 
fully fund its operations. I support the Coble amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to state to the gentleman that, 
since 1994, we have increased the funding for this office by $250 
million, $250 million over the last 5 years we have increased them.
  In this current bill, we are increasing them by $34 million. Now that 
is not exorbitant, but we think that the PTO has to live within the 
same constraints that all the other agencies of the Government must 
live within. They are not exempt from the regular laws of discipline 
that the rest of the agencies of the Government must live by.
  I appreciate the fact that they are generating huge amounts of money 
in the fees they collect, but these are Government-authorized fees.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because I suspect I am 
running out of it, I just would say to the gentleman that, since 1992, 
the workload has increased 75 percent. And this is not an expenditure, 
it is an investment. Patents and trademarks help our economy. They 
forward our economy. They encourage the development.
  So this is an investment, not a subtraction, and the workload 
requires that we keep pace. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). The Patent Office is a 
little different than some other agencies in that what we are talking 
about here are fees that are generated by the Patent Office and we are 
talking about not diverting fees generated by the Patent Office.
  Now, that is not an imputable principle. There are times when fees 
that are generated ought to be spent elsewhere. But I think it is 
inappropriate to suggest that the Patent Office is showing a lack of 
discipline when they seek simply to expend the funds that are generated 
as a direct result of their own efforts.
  This House and the Congress as a whole increased patent fees 
recently. We did it as part of an overhaul of patent legislation, and 
one part of that was a promise that the fee increases would go for the 
Patent Office.
  In terms of the economy, getting patents done quickly is essential. 
There is no good reason for delay in any Government agency, but delays 
in the granting of patents have a particular negative impact by the 
nature of the case. Uncertainty as to what is or is not patentable is 
not just a bad thing for individuals, it has negative effects on the 
whole economy.
  Now, I join, I think, virtually everyone here, including the author 
of this bill, in not liking these offsets. I know, because I have been 
working with the

[[Page 12130]]

gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) on this, that he has tried 
very hard to deal with this offset issue. But I am going to vote for 
this amendment confident that the offsets will themselves be offset.
  We have borrowed a concept from the British parliament. They have a 
shadow cabinet, the people who would take over the Government if the 
parties change hands. We have a shadow budget. Thanks to the majority, 
we adopt a budget early in the year in the House that no one thinks is 
going to be paid serious attention to.
  We are going through an exercise now. We have to vote this thing out 
so we can get into a House-Senate conference and a negotiation with the 
President so the real budget will be adopted.
  Now, if this were the real budget, I would not want to see these 
offsets. But, in the shadow budget, it does not bother me because the 
sun will come out when we go into the conference and these shadows will 
go away. But they will go away, I hope, with this House having sent a 
strong statement that the Patent Office should be fully funded.
  That is what we are talking about here. This is not a vote, in my 
judgment, on the Fullbright program or other worthy programs or 
economic statistics. Actually, we probably ought to give more to 
economic statistics so the people who make these foolish budgets will 
be better informed and would not come up with a budget that is so 
inadequate. But that is not something we can address here.
  What we are addressing here, I think, is a vote on whether or not the 
House believes that fees generated by the Patent Office's activity, 
fees that are necessary to keep a cutting-edge office for technology at 
its best level, fees that are necessary to avoid delays in this 
critical question of what is and is not patentable.
  We have all these problems about, well, does the patent take effect 
right away. People should go back to the debate and remember how much 
controversy was generated in this House because of delays in the Patent 
Office. And we said at the time, if we could eliminate delays in the 
processing of patents, we would do away with most of the controversies 
that roiled this House and roiled the Senate for years. So we have a 
chance to do that with a relatively small amount of money in the 
overall budget and its revenues generated by the Patent Office.

                              {time}  1200

  So I hope that we adopt the amendment. I hope when the real budget 
process starts, we will restore the offsets that this amendment is 
forced to make by an unrealistic budget and we will both in real terms 
and in a very important symbolic way signify to the inventors of the 
United States, the most creative part of the intellectual community, 
that we are fully supportive of their efforts.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for offering the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. This 
is really about the future of our economy. The dramatic increase that 
is being experienced in the growth of the number of patent applications 
and trademark applications is because of the Internet and the new 
information technology economy. As chairman of the Congressional 
Internet Caucus and as a member of the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property, I can tell my colleagues that the workload of 
anybody who works in this area is increasing dramatically and that is 
certainly true of the Patent and Trademark Office. It is vitally 
important that we allow them to keep these funds.
  Yes, it is absolutely true that they are generating a great deal of 
funds. The reason why they are is because they are generating a 
dramatic increase in the number of applications. They need to turn that 
money around, beef up their ability to handle this, because this is the 
engine that is driving our economy. Unlike any past dramatic growth in 
the history of our country, the Internet is the largest collection of 
patents and trademarks and copyrights ever in the history of the world. 
That is really what this is about, the dramatic growth in our economy.
  If we do not continue to fuel this by making sure that these 
applications are processed in a timely fashion and processed in a 
careful fashion to make sure that patents that should be issued are 
issued, patents that should not be issued are not issued, they have got 
to have the necessary resources to do this.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to adequately fund the 
Patent and Trademark Office. I commend the gentleman from North 
Carolina for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) in strong opposition to this amendment.
  First of all, I agree with those who have gotten up to say that we 
need more money in the Patent Office. We on this side have been saying 
that for 2 days now, that the problem with this bill is it does not 
have enough money to cover a lot of areas. But this amendment opens up 
a discussion which we thought we had put to bed last year and that is a 
discussion of the census and the Census Bureau. Taking money out of 
here will begin to cripple the followup work and the ongoing work that 
the Census Bureau has to do in order to follow up everything that we 
funded them to do last year.
  And so last year and for a couple of years, we had a bitter debate on 
the funding for the census; and when it was all over, I believe that we 
had in a bipartisan fashion done the right thing. But now that we have 
to look at a lot of information that is provided to us on a weekly and 
monthly and yearly basis, we go after the Census Bureau again with a 
deep cut.
  The Census Bureau has told us that if they were to take any further 
cuts, and especially this kind of cut, employment and unemployment 
data, information on infant and child well-being, health insurance 
coverage measurements and many other of these kinds of statistics would 
be in danger.
  I would hope that as we look at this amendment today that we commit 
ourselves perhaps in the future to finding another way to finding 
dollars for this agency and not to take it out of the Census Bureau. If 
we do that, we are going to reopen that discussion again; we are going 
to open the door for those who think that somehow Americans should not 
be counted every 10 years, and we are just going to cripple this agency 
once again.
  Please keep in mind that while we gave so much energy last year to 
the fact that we were having this once-every-10-year count, most of the 
work that the Census Bureau does, it does during that period. Now by 
taking this cut, they would jeopardize and we would jeopardize their 
ability to continue this work.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Kentucky in asking for strong 
opposition to this amendment and its defeat.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. 
Unfortunately, we have two tough choices here because there are two 
very important functions of the Government that are being debated; and 
we should not put them opposite each other, but that is what this 
amendment does.
  There is no question about the need for the Patent and Trademark 
Office needing probably more funding. There is no question about the 
need of its importance in our economy. But we also have to be 
supportive of the census. We are talking about the economy. Alan 
Greenspan is given a lot of credit for presiding over our economy. How 
does he make his decisions? He makes his decisions about economic 
statistics generated by the Bureau of the Census. If this amendment 
were to pass, it would devastate the Census Bureau's

[[Page 12131]]

ability to do things like the Consumer Price Index and the other 
economic statistics that are cranked out constantly by the Bureau of 
the Census.
  The Census Bureau has already taken a $51 million cut from the 
President's mark already. We need to do what we can to push it back up 
to the President's mark. But it is a tough choice we have to make 
between an important function, patent and trademark, but the equally 
important function of the Bureau of the Census. We are talking about 
cutting 500 jobs, but it is more than the jobs. It is what helps 
businesses make decisions. It is what helps, whether it is the high-
tech industry or the reliable statistics flowing out constantly from 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  It does not take a lot out of the decennial census, but what it does 
is take out the planning for the 2010 census and especially the idea of 
getting rid of the long form. There was a lot of controversy earlier 
this year to get rid of the long form. We really want to move in that 
direction. What we want to move toward is something called the American 
Community Survey, which is something that is done on an annual basis. 
We just started doing that in the past couple of years, gearing up to 
do away with, so we will not have that long form in 2010. The idea is 
on a monthly basis we will collect this type of information. This would 
destroy that. If we are sincere about getting rid of that long form, we 
cannot go out and slash away at the Census Bureau.
  There are many other important parts to it that would be actually 
devastated in this. This size cut, over 20 percent, just cannot be 
handled. I understand the need for the Patent and Trademark Office, but 
we should not do this. This amendment should be defeated at this stage. 
We should work with the chairman, with the full committee; and if more 
money becomes available, both areas should be increased.
  Do not try to force one against the other. Let us accept the 
chairman's mark and move forward.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am as frustrated as virtually every speaker who has 
stood up on this floor today, as frustrated as my colleague from North 
Carolina with the dilemma he faces in his amendment. I strongly support 
what he is trying to do, and I am opposed to how he has chosen to do 
it. The PTO is a critical link in the infusion of new ideas and 
products into our economic system. Even with the increase in fees, it 
is the best bargain in the industrialized world. The PTO protects 
intellectual property inherent in America's economic growth. Without 
that protection, the incentives for R&D would wither. The companies 
that support this amendment understand that. They also understand that 
the delay in processing patent applications has real cost to them, 
dollars that could otherwise be put back into research and development 
and productive capacity.
  At the same time in these very same companies, management analysts 
are tracking the economy and making decisions daily about how best to 
position their company and their assets, including their intellectual 
property, in the rapidly changing economy of the 21st century. Those 
analysts and managers look to the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the measures that tell 
them how the microclimates in the economy are changing and how those 
changes will affect their company. Without the ability to map the 
economy and respond to the currents therein, public and private 
decision-making in every kind of business and at every level of 
government will decay, wither and atrophy.
  It is a terrible irony that this amendment in the name of improving 
protection of intellectual property would squander our investment in 
intellectual capital and infrastructure. The cuts this amendment makes 
to the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis would 
dramatically affect the position of fundamental economic measures like 
the Gross Domestic Product, the Producer Price Index, the Consumer 
Price Index, as well as measures of productivity and capacity 
utilization. Undermining the precision of these indicators will 
inevitably undermine the vitality of the American economy.
  It is with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment. I strongly 
believe that our protection of intellectual property is one of those 
factors that draws some of the best minds in the world to American 
companies and to the U.S. patent system in general to protect their 
intellectual property. I also know that the solution this amendment 
offers is as bad as the ill it sets out to cure. I question whether we 
have carefully explored the consequences of the proposed offsets or the 
equally important underlying concern about the proper expenditure of 
revenues raised through user fees in the PTO. Those who have raised 
that point do so with precision and with an emphasis on an important 
consequence of what we are doing here today. Both are important.
  I hope that we all can find a way to work together with the gentleman 
from North Carolina to solve the problems facing the Patent and 
Trademark Office. Together, we have got to be able to find a better 
solution than this one.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from North 
Carolina's amendment. I have no issue with increased funding for the 
Patent and Trademark Office. I am sure that they require the funds that 
have been given to them through a process and that process was through 
the gentleman from Kentucky's committee. They looked at this for quite 
some time, and they have come up with what they think was reasonable 
within the constraints of our budget. I applaud them for that.
  But I take strong issue with this amendment because it takes $40 
million in offsetting funds in a cut from the Census Bureau. I must say 
to my colleagues that that is not a good offset, because this is the 
Census Bureau's everyday work that they are cutting here, their year-in 
and year-out work that gets done within the shadows of the decennial 
census that is made every 10 years. Every day we use data from these 
programs. There is not a day that passes that each of us does not use 
it. We get information from all other agencies and resources. And what 
is the source of it? The Census Bureau. Every day we use the Census 
Bureau's data to help us make decisions. These data are very important 
to us making decisions on every level of government, poverty, 
children's health care, home health care, and trade.
  Someone has said the cuts may be restored later and given back to the 
Census Bureau. Do not bet on it. What assurances do we have that the 
census will be able to operate as it should?
  The House mark is already $41 million below the administration's 
request. And we want to cut them again? This alone would devastate the 
Nation's economic and demographic statistical infrastructure, 
eliminating all new measurement initiatives including any means of 
measuring e-business, improvement of export coverage, and an annual 
survey of minority-owned businesses. Look at all the work this body has 
done this year to enhance e-business. Now we are eliminating the 
possibility of measuring the results of this work.
  If the gentleman's amendment passes, it amounts to an additional 29 
percent cut. This cut will hinder the Bureau's ability to measure the 
Gross Domestic Product, the Index of Industrial Production, the 
Consumer Price Index, the Producer Price Index, employment and 
unemployment, health insurance coverage, employment of the disabled and 
child care.
  Allow me to put a human face on this issue. Passage of this amendment 
will lead 500 Census Bureau employees into the unemployment line.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not think we completely comprehend the 
damage we would do to our Nation if we pass the Coble amendment. It is 
not an insignificant amendment. It is a very significant amendment. 
Therefore, it should stop right here on the floor of

[[Page 12132]]

the Congress. In this day and age, $40 million may not seem like a huge 
cut, but to the professionals at the Census Bureau who provide the 
measurement of our Nation's statistical information, this cut is 
devastating.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stop this devastating amendment 
and defeat the Coble amendment.


                Damage Done by the Coble Cuts to Census

  The Coble Cuts from the Census Bureau $40 million (29%) and $10 
million (20%) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
  The Coble Cuts to the Census Bureau are from the ``Other Periodic 
Programs'' account which funds all Census Bureau activity other than 
the 2000 census.
  The Coble Cuts to the Census Bureau would reduce the quality of: 
Employment and Unemployment data; Information on infant and child well-
being; Health Insurance coverage measurement; Employment of the 
disabled measurement; Our ability to track the well-being of those aged 
85 and above; and Measures of participation in welfare to work 
programs.
  The Coble Cuts will damage key economic indicators like the: Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) used to track economic growth and adjust 
interest rates; Index of Industrial Production; Consumer Price Index 
used to index wages and retirement payments like Social Security; 
Producer Price Index; Monthly trade statistics; Quarterly state 
personal income estimates used to allocate $100 billion in federal 
funds; and Data on foreign direct investment as well as foreign-owned 
companies.
  The Coble Cuts will: Force BEA to layoff \1/3\ of its work force; 
Force the Census Bureau to let 500 analysts go; and End the measurement 
of e-commerce as it rapidly becomes an increasingly important part of 
the economy.
  The Coble Cuts will directly affect the ability of many to do their 
jobs including: Federal Reserve Board; Council of Economic Advisors; 
Congressional Budget Office; Congressional Research Service; Joint 
Economic Committee; Economic planners for businesses and industry; 
Financial planners in state and local governments; and Trade 
associations and businesses interested in promoting international 
trade.
  The Coble Cuts will directly impair the efficiency and stability of 
U.S. capital markets, private investment decisions, and U.S. federal 
and state budgetary and financial policies. One of the reasons the U.S. 
economy has been performing so well is the availability of timely and 
comprehensive economic statistics. Chairman Greenspan, and his 
colleagues at the Federal Reserve, watch these measures closely as they 
decide whether or not to adjust interest rates.


                         Coble Cripples Census

  Representative Coble is offering an amendment to the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations bill (H.R. 4690) which would cut funding 
for the Census Bureau's Periodic Programs account by $40 million--a cut 
of almost 30 percent. This is not a cut from the 2000 census budget, 
but rather a cut from the funds used to measure employment and 
unemployment; child welfare; hospitals and care providers; and the 
basic inputs to the Consumer Price Index. The Census Bureau is 
prohibited by law from transferring funds from any other account to 
cover these cuts.
  The Coble amendment will also cut $10 million, a 20 percent cut, from 
the funds for the Economic Statistics Administration in the Department 
of Commerce. Most of the ESA funds go to the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis (BEA) which calculates the key indicators like Gross Domestic 
Product (GDP) and measures of inflation used to track economic 
performance. These indicators are used by the Federal Reserve Board to 
determine interest rates, and by the Treasury to adjust the money 
supply.
  Massive cuts to these two statistical agencies will affect the 
quality of information on the economy and social welfare for years to 
come. Such cuts would make it impossible for the Census Bureau and BEA 
to continue their groundbreaking work in measuring the impact of e-
commerce on our economy. These cuts are likely to result in massive 
layoffs of trained professionals--statistical agencies spend most of 
their money on salaries. It will take years to replace that workforce 
even if the funds were replaced next year.
  The goal of the Coble amendment is to return user fees to the Patent 
and Trademark Office (PTO) that have been reallocated to other 
programs, but not necessarily to the census accounts. Rep. Coble wants 
PTO to use these fees to increase the speed of processing applications. 
While that is an admirable goal, it cannot come at the expense of our 
basic ability to measure economic performance.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which will 
take $98 million, close to 50 percent of the funds, from the cultural 
international exchange programs. Exchange programs are among the most 
effective and cost-effective means we have of promoting freedom and 
democracy throughout the world. This is one of the most constructive 
programs at the State Department in terms of advancing our Nation's 
foreign policy.
  Whereas my colleagues have set forth good reasons for supporting the 
Patent and Trade Office, but the gutting of the international exchange 
program, cutting some $98 million from a $213 million account, is not a 
reasonable offset.
  There is strong bipartisan support for international exchanges, and 
this Congress has consistently supported that important activity.
  Cutting this substantial amount from the international exchange 
program means that the highly respected Fullbright Scholarship program 
and other noteworthy exchanges which advance learning as well as our 
relations between our country and many others are going to be 
dramatically slashed.
  Please bear in mind, my colleagues, that the amount appropriated for 
international exchanges in this bill is already $28 million less than 
what was appropriated in 1994, and that is before inflation and real 
dollars. International exchanges have already been cut by some 30 
percent. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Coble 
amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by 
the gentleman from the State of North Carolina (Mr. Coble). While I am 
sympathetic to the interests of the gentleman in the efficiency of the 
Patent and Trade Office, I must urge my colleagues to oppose it and to 
join the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers); the ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Miller) of the Subcommittee on Census on which I serve as the 
ranking Democrat in opposing this measure.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) wants funds for the 
Patent and Trademark Office to increase the speed of processing 
applications. While that is an admirable goal, it cannot come at the 
expense of our basic ability to measure economic performance.
  To accomplish this goal, this amendment would cut funding for the 
Census Bureau's Periodic Programs account by $40 million, a cut of 
almost 30 percent. This is not a cut from the 2000 census budget, but 
rather a cut from the funds used to measure employment and 
unemployment, child welfare, hospitals and care providers, and the 
basic inputs to the Consumer Price Index.
  The Coble amendment will also cut $10 million, a 20 percent cut, from 
the funds for the Economic Statistics Administration and the Department 
of Commerce. Most of the ESA funds go to the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, which calculates the key indicators like Gross Domestic 
Product and measures of inflation used to track economic performance.
  These economic indicators are used by the Federal Reserve Board to 
determine interest rates and by the Treasury to adjust the money 
supply. Many of my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
and others talked about the need to fund the patent office, because we 
are part of the global economy, but we need our economic indicators to 
help us be the leaders in this global economy, and if we do not have 
them, we will soon fall sharply behind.
  Massive cuts to these two statistical agencies will effect the 
quality of information in our economy and social welfare for years to 
come. Such cuts would make it impossible for the Census Bureau and BEA 
to continue their groundbreaking work in measuring the impact of E-
commerce on our economy. These cuts are likely to result in massive 
layoffs of trained professionals.
  Earlier the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) mentioned that there 
was a

[[Page 12133]]

freeze at the Patent Office in hiring, but if these cuts go through, 
the professionals that we have literally been training for years would 
be laid off. Statistical agencies spend most of their money on salaries 
and in developing personnel. It will take years to replace that work 
force, even if the funds were replaced next year.
  The Coble amendment will make deep cuts in two of the three agencies 
that make up the backbone of the country's ability to track and respond 
to changing economic conditions. The cuts in these two agencies will 
have effects that ripple throughout the system. It may well be 
important to speed up the processing of patent and trademark 
applications; however, if in the process of doing so, we contribute to 
diminishing our unprecedented economic expansion, these businesses that 
are supporting it will have cut off their nose in spite of their face.
  As a member of the Joint Economic Committee, I recognize the 
importance of our key economic indicators, the chairman and members of 
the Federal Reserve Board regularly monitor measures such as the Gross 
Domestic Product, the Producer Price Index, the Consumer Price Index, 
measures of wage changes and productivity. Many have credited Chairman 
Greenspan's leadership in monitoring and responding to changes in these 
measures with the continued growth of our economy.
  The Coble amendment has crippling cuts to the Census Bureau, and BEA 
appropriations will seriously degrade the quality of these indicators. 
These cuts will create effects that will last well into the next 
decade.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Miller) in 
voting no. There may be a need to increase our investment in the 
processing of patent and trademark applications, but this is not the 
way to do it. We must not sacrifice our ability to monitor our economy 
and our society for such short-term gains.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, while I have great sympathy and even supported the 
desire to boost the funding level for the patent office, it is the 
offset, the slashing of the U.S. public diplomacy programs and 
educational programs that leads me to oppose the Coble amendment.
  By cutting educational exchange programs in half, we severely 
undermine the training and the education of the next generation of 
leaders in developing countries throughout the world.
  Let me remind the Members through legislation such as the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 3427, which I offered last year along 
with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), which became law in last November, Congress 
strengthened the connection between our international exchanges and the 
promotion of human rights and democracy around the world.
  Many of our exchange programs are aimed at Nations that are burdened 
with impressive governments like China, Vietnam and Cambodia, whose 
people need continuing contact with the American government, its 
institutions, its educational venues and the like.
  It seems to me that public diplomacy gives us the ability and then 
especially the ability to catch the good infection about what 
democracy, about what capitalism is about.
  Congress, Mr. Chairman, has specifically provided scholarships for 
East Timorese students and for Tibetan and Burmese students who are in 
exile from their countries, as well as the exchange programs between 
the people of the U.S. and the people of Tibet.
  Exchange programs, Mr. Chairman, promote international development by 
bringing students from those developing nations to study in America, 
they learn so much, they bring it back, and hopefully we get a safer 
and a more sane world, especially over time.
  It is a great investment. It is a modest amount of money and the 
offset, again, notwithstanding the importance of funding adequately the 
patent office, this is the wrong offset. I strongly urge a no vote on 
the Coble amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the public must be confused in listening to this 
debate. No one has stood on this floor, no one, to say that we should 
not spend the money that the committee has included in the bill for the 
object in the Census Bureau, nobody. Everybody agrees that we are 
underfunding the Patent Office, including me, in this bill.
  This bill is $2.7 billion under what the committee almost to a person 
determines are the needs of this bill. Committee does not have that 
money, and they had to make hard choices. My friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), spoke passionately for this 
amendment, because the objective of this amendment is to ensure that 
the Patent Office has sufficient funds.
  I agree with that objective, but I most emphatically do not agree 
that the solution to solving that problem is to take money from 
someplace where everybody also agrees the money is needed. My 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), in his 
inimitable fashion said this is a shadow debate about a shadow budget. 
What did he mean? This is not real.
  It is not real, because we know in the final analysis there is going 
to be more money in this bill. There is not an honest person who is a 
Member of this House that does not know this bill is going to be higher 
when we adopt finally the conference report than it is today; 
therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coble amendment, not 
because I oppose the objectives of the Coble amendment, because I 
believe that those in this floor who support both the census funding, 
and I might say there is too little census funding in this bill, we 
ought not to take more of it and decimate the objects that the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has articulated, who has done 
such an incredible job on the census issues, and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) who spoke earlier.
  The solution is not to take money from census, the solution is to get 
money to the Patent and Trade Office. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) mentioned the arcane scoring process, where actually PTO makes 
money. They charge fees. They have the dollars available to them, but 
because we have lowered the cap, in effect, our 302(b)s, it cannot be 
spent. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano) had to make hard choices, their hard choice was 
we ought not to underfund census.
  We are going to look to do better for PTO as this proceeds through 
the process. I, therefore, come down on the side of allowing this bill 
to move forward, and I will tell my friends who, like me, support those 
in the high-tech industry, in particular, who are critically concerned 
about these PTOs that they are going to be lobbying heavier than those 
who are concerned about the census. Therefore, I am convinced that if 
the tactic, if you tackle that, the tactics should be let census remain 
as it is in the bill, confident that those who are concerned about the 
Patent and Trade Office, as I am, as the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren), as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who are 
here in front of me, we can be confident that that will be made whole 
in conference before it gets to the President.
  I think we have more confidence in that alternative than we can be 
and that the census will be made whole. I urge my colleagues in 
conclusion to leave the bill as the committee has reported it. It is 
not sufficient. It is not sufficient, but we are more likely to make 
PTO sufficient in conference than we are census.
  Both are critically necessary as every speaker has articulated on 
both sides of this issue. In sum, this is a tactical determination, not 
a substantive one, because no one disagrees with either substantive 
proposal. But to rob from Peter to pay Paul, when Peter perhaps will be 
less attended to than

[[Page 12134]]

Paul does not make good tactical sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
support additional funding for PTO.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this House should not go on record as taking these 
kinds of funds out of these other important programs, and I would 
relate to just one, the BEA, the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the 
Department of Commerce.
  This amendment would reduce its funds by almost 20 percent. Chairman 
Alan Greenspan rarely goes on public record of suggesting increased 
funding for any agency. In the BEA, as he has suggested, for the 
importance of that statistical calculation, we need more money in that 
agency. Already we have shortchanged, we have reduced the funding for 
that agency in the last few years by a real 12 percent.
  This amendment would take an additional 20 percent out of their 
funds, that is the basis of over a $100 billion in revenue sharing. It 
is the basis of the projections of OMB and CBO. We should not go on 
record of this kind of drastic reduction in these kinds of agencies.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon in support of the Coble amendment 
to restore what I think are the badly needed funds, in fact, the direct 
fees that are paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is 
really a fascinating debate that we are having here today in the House.
  I think this is a most interesting and instructive debate that is 
taking place here today, and I think that every Member that has risen 
on the floor, whether they are in support of the amendment or rise in 
opposition, have made very, very important points. I guess the most 
important one is that this budget is not funded the way it should be.
  What I want to point out are the very important things that the 
Patent Office does and what it means to our Nation and our Nation's 
economy. The Patent Office is 100 percent supported by the user fees 
that are paid by patent and trademark applicants and owners. Since 
1992, the Congress has been withholding an increasing portion of these 
fees for use in other CJS agencies.
  In fiscal year 2000 alone, $116 million in PTO user fees were given 
to other CJS agencies. So it is not as if people are not coming to the 
Patent Office. They are, in increasing numbers, and they are paying the 
fees; but the fees are being siphoned off for other parts of the 
budget.
  I do not think this is right. The user fees are meant to pay for the 
work of the agency to which they are very directly paid.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me correct the gentlewoman's 
misunderstanding of that point. The fees that are generated by the 
Patent Office are not used for any other agency or any other purpose. 
They remain in that account to be used in succeeding years. We are not 
siphoning off the Patent Office fees for other expenditures.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I would ask, are 100 percent of the user fees that 
are paid by applicants to the PTO remaining for use in the Patent 
Office?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, those fees 
remain in the Patent Office account for use in succeeding years. They 
are not siphoned off to any other purpose.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. One hundred percent of fees that are paid by 
applicants are retained in the Patent Office; is that correct?
  Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So why is there a deficit? Why is there a 
decreasing amount of money for the Patent Office, and why are we having 
this debate then?
  Mr. ROGERS. As I pointed out earlier, we actually increased the 
Patent Office expenditures in the bill by $33 million this year. Over 
the last 4 years we have increased them by $250 million. So they are 
not starving.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me go on to 
talk about the importance of the office. There is a shortfall of 
funding for the work that needs to be done, and that is a very real 
part of this debate.
  Increasing patent approval times, if in fact that approval time is 
threatened, that in and of itself can and will have a crippling effect 
on what we call the new economy. You cannot leave out of this debate 
what this new economy is producing for our Nation. The high technology 
and biotechnology sectors of our economy depend on prompt and high-
quality patents and trademarks to protect their investments in research 
and development and new product production. Venture capital funding for 
start-up companies depend on timely patent protection and can dry up 
because patent times continue to soar. The result will be a 
bureaucratic bottleneck that chokes off the development of new 
breakthroughs of all kinds of things that every single Member of 
Congress hails and supports.
  While for some this may be a little known office, the PTO is the 
backbone of the new economy. Many Members have talked about other 
agencies, Commerce, what Chairman Greenspan relies upon statistically. 
I would like to suggest that those statistics will not be available for 
use if in fact these patents cannot be approved.
  We have to look at what is fueling and what is the backbone of this 
new economy. I know that the Coble amendment restores $134 million in 
user fees.
  Finally, we need to broaden this debate and understand that this 
feeds intellectual property. This new economy is all about new ideas. 
It is about America's intellectual property; it is about ideas. They 
need to be funded, and we should not abort the investment that the 
ideas represent.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Coble amendment. The 
economic growth that we are experiencing today, the economic growth 
that provides the budget surpluses that we are enjoying, arises from 
work done in research, development and invention; and it is absolutely 
essential that we continue that process of research, development and 
invention, and that we get the patents issued promptly so that we can 
continue this economic boom, this economic growth which we enjoy.
  I remember not too many years ago when there were long delays in the 
Patent Office, and this body raised the fees of the Patent Office so 
that we could process the inventions more rapidly. But now once again 
inventors and manufacturers are beginning to experience delays in the 
processing of their patents.
  I have two letters here indicating that patents are being held up 
because there are insufficient personnel and facilities to process 
these patents. That, again, has a debillitating effect on the 
advancement of our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, my conclusion is we must increase the funding. We must 
fund them the Patent and Trademark Office adequately, so that we do not 
have delays in processing.
  In response to the chairman's comment a moment ago, I would like to 
ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), is it not true that the 
amount of money being expended for this purpose is counted towards the 
cap, the allocation that is fixed in your budget? In other words, if 
more money were designated for the Patent and Trademark Office and 
everything else remained constant, you would exceed your allocation. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, let me just say I 
think the problem is not the unwillingness of the committee to increase 
funding. I suspect if the allocation were increased, they would do so.

[[Page 12135]]

  As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has pointed out 
eloquently, the allocation for this particular subcommittee is simply 
too low. I recognize that the subcommittee has struggled with this 
issue, that they have done the best they can within their allocation, 
and I respect that. At the same time, I encourage this body to vote for 
this amendment to indicate that our priority is to make certain that 
these patents are processed in due time, and that they are handled 
rapidly enough to help the economy continue to grow.
  I do this with the recognition that this will hurt other segments of 
the budget that also need funding; but I am confident that, as the 
process goes on, the Senate and the House will recognize the importance 
of both of these areas and that the funding will be increased to 
accommodate the needs in both areas.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the gentleman 
from Maryland said earlier. We are in a sense robbing Peter to pay Paul 
in that we are taking the money out of the fees paid to the PTO and 
saving them for later use simply because using them now would cause the 
subcommittee allocation to be exceeded.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Coble amendment so that we can 
in fact continue the rapid processing of the patents in the Patent 
Office.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, let me make this 
point: the argument is that we are squeezing this agency so that they 
are not able to process new patent applications rapidly enough.
  I would point out that 40 percent of their fee collections comes from 
maintenance of existing patents. And there is no significant workload 
associated with that, 40 percent of their fee generation. They 
requested $130 million in the budget. Only $22 million of that is for 
patent examiners, where they say the shortage is. The other increases 
they are asking for are really a lot of bells and whistles.
  I have to point out, they are preparing to build an enormous marble 
building down the river to consolidate all of their offices in one 
place. I do not know of an agency of the Government that is going to 
have a finer place to work, and that is fine. But I am just saying that 
the money they requested for patent examiners, where they say the 
problem is, is only $22 million. They ask for $130 million. Where is 
the other $108 million going?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the point 
the gentleman made, and I respect the ability of the committee to 
examine those issues. However, based on the information I am being 
given by the inventors and the researchers in the field, the additional 
funding for the Patent and Trademark Office is needed in order to 
process the new patents rapidly enough.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Patent and Trademark Office is important and worthy 
of support, but not by cutting the Census. The goal is worthy, but the 
method is not.
  Now, there is no question that Democrats and Republicans have had 
some very fundamental differences over the decennial census; but today 
many of us, on both sides of the aisle, are joining together saying 
that there can be no further cuts to the Census. I believe we must 
ensure the most accurate census possible, and I have fought very hard 
to make that a reality in the 2000 census. Others, on the other hand, 
have fought an accurate census every step of the way.
  Minorities, particularly Hispanics, have been disproportionately 
undercounted in the past, and I do not think this government should 
allow that to continue. Everyone deserves to be counted, every 
community deserves adequate and fair resources for its residents, and 
every American resident deserves full and fair representation.
  We have come a long way toward meeting these goals, and we are 
working hard to achieve the most accurate decennial census in recent 
history, despite strong opposition from various quarters at every step 
in the process. Today is apparently no different. We again face an 
unreasonable assault on the Census Bureau, which is the source of more, 
much more than just the decennial census figures. After all, the money 
we have invested in trying to reach one of the most accurate censuses 
ever, this amendment would completely undermine the ability of the 
Census Bureau to translate that data into statistics that all segments 
of this country, including America's major corporations, count on for 
planning and decision-making.
  The Census Bureau provides invaluable economic and demographic data 
covering employment, health insurance, and business activity. These 
figures have a broad range of users, in both the public and private 
sectors, and help decision-makers to most effectively and efficiently 
target our limited resources.
  Let us be clear about what is at stake here: despite the worthiness 
of the goal, voting for this amendment would jeopardize funding for 
health coverage data and employment data, both, for example, which 
disproportionately impact Hispanics and other minorities.
  Likewise, this amendment would jeopardize funding for the survey of 
minority-owned and women-owned businesses. This amendment ignores the 
needs of women, Hispanic and other minorities, and a vote against the 
amendment continues our fight for equal opportunity for all, whether it 
is fighting for health coverage for the working poor, creating new jobs 
for those who have been left behind in today's economic boom, or 
assisting those business owners who are struggling to compete in this 
high-tech economy.
  We cannot do that without the census data that is extrapolated by the 
experts; and having spent all of these resources to accomplish that 
information, it would be amazing not to give them the resources to be 
able to do the extrapolation, the statistical analysis that are 
incredibly important to billions of dollars of investment by the 
private sector, as well as by the public sector.
  This amendment would have a chilling effect on the Bureau's ability 
to continue to provide these invaluable resources to government 
agencies, to business analysts, to researchers and associations that 
promote trade and State and local growth.
  So it is much bigger than the 2000 decennial census; it is much 
bigger than the Census Bureau itself. This amendment takes away tools 
from the businesses, the very businesses that in one respect it is 
trying to help. This amendment takes away tools from businesses, 
businesses owned by all stripes of Americans, businesses owned by 
women, businesses owned by minorities who may be struggling to compete 
with domestic and foreign companies.

                              {time}  1245

  It takes away tools from the trade associations who are trying to 
promote trade and improve our Nation's trade deficit. Finally, it takes 
away tools from the policymakers who are trying to address the present 
needs in our communities, needs that too many in this House are willing 
to ignore.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, despite the worthiness of its 
goal, that we cannot afford, and I urge Members to oppose the Coble 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate demonstrates just how dumb this bill is. We 
have the people who are offering the amendment, justifiably pointing 
out that the Patent Office ought to be fully funded because that office 
is key to innovation, it is key to economic progress, it is key to 
jobs, it is key to modernizing our economy. But because the majority 
party has decided that it is more important to give the 400 richest 
Americans $200 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, and because 
the majority party has decided that in the minimum wage bill, for God's 
sake, that gives only $11 billion worth of benefits to workers, they 
are going to give $90 billion in tax relief to people who make $300,000 
a year or more; because of those stupid decisions, what they are doing 
is forcing us to choose which half of the economy we are going to 
cripple.

[[Page 12136]]

  So we have to choose between crippling the Patent Office, because 
this bill steals money from the fees in order to fund other programs; 
so we have to choose between doing that or gutting our ability to 
understand what is happening in this economy by gutting the statistical 
capability of the United States Government to know what is really 
happening on unemployment, to know what is really happening on trade, 
to know what is really happening with respect to price changes.
  Every politician from the Midwest and the Northeast on this floor is 
practically killing each other trying to get to the nearest microphone 
to crawl all over the floor about what is happening to gas prices. 
Then, what do they do in this amendment? They are gutting the ability 
of the Government to figure out what is happening, not just on gas 
prices, but on virtually all other price changes. This Congress passes 
out hundreds of billions of dollars to localities, to businesses, and 
to everybody else on the basis of economic statistics that are, at 
best, half-baked.
  So this Congress is being asked to continue that idiocy because this 
bill is at least $1 billion short of meeting its responsibilities. So 
we are having to decide which good, important, crucial government 
activity we are going to fund, and which one we are not.
  Everybody on this floor says, oh, I am for a smaller government; and 
then the first time we have a problem with gas prices, they say, why 
does not the Government do something to control those gas prices? Why 
do they not stop the gouging? The first time my colleagues do not like 
what is happening in the crime area, you say, why does not the 
Government do this? So my colleagues deny the Government the resources 
they need, and then they cry all over the floor when they cannot do the 
job that they are supposed to be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, this House reeks of idiocy and hypocrisy on these 
issues. We have a chance, because we are in an era of surpluses rather 
than deficits, we have a chance, if we do things right, to strengthen 
what needs to be strengthened in our economy, to continue this economic 
recovery for years to come, and at the same time, to bring along the 
folks in this society who are not in the top 2 percent, who have not 
had the big increase in income that others have had. Some of the folks 
are being left far behind on health care, on education, on everything 
else; and yet we are gutting science at the National Science 
Foundation. We are having this amendment which, however it comes out, 
we are going to cripple half the Government. What a dumb debate on what 
a dumb bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, and we are running out of time 
because of the earlier commitment to be out of here on this bill at a 
certain hour, I wonder how many speakers are on the floor who wish yet 
to be heard on the amendment. There are four that I count. I wonder if 
we could get unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment could 
end at 5 after 1:00, which would allow some 15 minutes, and to be 
divided equally between the parties.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would have to object to that at this 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in strong support, strong support of the Coble amendment. The 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and I have worked diligently 
over the years, I would say that we probably put in thousands of hours 
over these last four years, in dealing with the patent issue, and I am 
very proud to stand with the gentleman now, and I am very proud that 
over our years of working on this issue, that we, last year, came 
together in support of a patent bill that will dramatically improve 
America's ability to protect our innovators.
  Part of that patent bill, which passed, and I believe it passed 
almost unanimously, I mean overwhelmingly, I think maybe only 40 or 50 
members voted against it, but in that bill was a commitment by this 
Congress to keep all of the funds that were generated by the Patent 
Office in the Patent Office, so that those people who were paying 
patent fees and using the patent system, since it was their resources 
that they were putting into the Patent Office and they were using the 
Patent Office's services, that those resources could then be used to 
make sure the system was efficient and effective, and that the Patent 
Office could be the best Patent Office in the world, and that our 
innovators would have the protection they need in order to move forward 
and to change our society and to uplift America's competitiveness and 
uplift our standard of living.
  Well, here we are less than a year away from when we passed that 
bill; and already they are trying to change the rules of the game so 
that that commitment that we made on the floor overwhelmingly, that 
that money that comes into the patent system would be reserved in 
making the patent system better and for financing the patent system, 
already we are violating that pledge.
  What the Coble amendment is about is, number one, enforcing the 
standards that we have set as a body and making sure we keep our word 
and keep our word to ourselves, keep our word to the American people, 
and keep our word to the innovators in this society, the innovators who 
are coming up with the ideas and the technology that ensures that 
America will have the highest standard of living, that ensures that the 
American people will have the jobs, and ensures that we will be a 
secure country because we have the technology that is far better than 
any adversary.
  So number one, just for that alone, we should be supporting the Coble 
amendment. But furthermore, it talks about priorities. The last speaker 
spoke about the frustration; and yes, there is frustration in dealing 
with the system that demands that we continue on a road of fiscal 
responsibility, and I know how frustrating that is. But because the 
Republicans have maintained that standard, and insisted on it, we have 
a balanced budget today. Yes, we can pull our hair out and say we would 
love to spend more money on all sorts of other things; but we have a 
balanced budget, and we are paying down the national debt, and we are 
making sure that the Social Security system is safe and secure, and 
that is because we are being responsible; and yes, it means that we 
have to at times choose between two priorities that are both good 
options, but we have to determine what our priority is.
  Mr. Chairman, I am on the Committee on International Relations as 
well as being a member of the Committee on Science, and I know how 
important these exchange programs are. The gentleman's amendment 
suggests that we take funds from this exchange program of bringing 
leaders and potential leaders from overseas here so that they can see 
how the American system works, and I support that. I think it is an 
important service that we can provide and does a great deal of good. 
But I will tell my colleagues what does more good.
  What does more good is when an American inventor has an idea and he 
moves forward with it and follows through and develops a new concept 
that might create billions of dollars' worth of wealth for the American 
people, and that inventor can go to our government and receive the 
protection that he or she deserves. That is more important than just 
providing a visitor's service to foreign dignitaries to this country, 
even though that foreign dignitaries, their visits, yes, that is an 
important thing that we can provide, helping to bring peace to the 
world, et cetera.
  However, if we have to choose between options, let us choose the 
option of standing with the American innovators, the American 
technologists, the inventors. They are the ones that have ensured that 
in this, the beginning of the new millennium, that America is starting 
out ahead of the pack. They are going to make sure that our people have 
a good standard of living, but they are only going to do that if we 
make sure our Patent Office gives

[[Page 12137]]

them the kind of protection that was given to American inventors 
throughout our history. That protection that we had since our country's 
founding is the mainspring of American progress.
  Mr. Chairman, vote for the Coble amendment and stay true to those 
principles and select the right priority.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this House to support the Coble 
amendment. I think it is a great opportunity to take a stand for 
innovation in the future of America's economy.
  Now, I say that mindful that the offsets that are offered in the bill 
are, indeed, not good ones; and I know that the gentleman himself has 
indicated that he does not favor the offsets that he identified. I am 
aware that he has tried for the last several days, and we have been 
kept apprised of his efforts, to find an offset that would work and 
other offsets were subject to a point of order, so this is what we 
ended up with.
  Clearly, cutting the Census is not something that we approve of on 
either side of the aisle at this point. Cutting the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis does not make any sense; none of us want to cut the 
Fullbrights, and I think it is true, as I am a member of the Census 
Caucus, that it would not be a good thing.
  However, having listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I must agree that 
these offsets in the end are not what is going to be in this bill. In 
fact, we know that this side referred to this bill as veto bait. I mean 
this bill, as currently constituted, is not going to become law. I 
think it is important that we take a stand for the Patent Office.
  Now, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property; and 
it is worth noting that our subcommittee has unanimously, on more than 
one occasion, indicated that we should keep the patent fees in the 
Patent Office. The patent community came up to bat and agreed that they 
would not object to increased fees for patents. It is not too often you 
find people saying, yes, charge us more, on the understanding that 
those fees would be used to upgrade the office so that patents would be 
dealt with in a timely and appropriate fashion. Well, what did we do? 
We raised the fees, but we did not live up to the other half of the 
bargain. They did not get the benefits of the fees.
  Now, I have heard the chairman of the subcommittee talk about the 
diversion issue, and I think technically it is correct; but I think it 
is important to understand that, in fact, there is a diversion. Let me 
illustrate.
  In fiscal year 1999, the Patent Office was denied $116 million of its 
revenue. In fiscal year 2000, $116 million was repaid, but they were 
denied $229 million of their fees for that year.

                              {time}  1300

  So we have a rolling denial of fees, and as a consequence, the Patent 
Office is underfunded.
  Now, why does this matter? We are going to have 600 patent examiners 
and attorneys leaving the Office through attrition in this next year, 
and we are not going to be able to replace them unless we have 
additional funds.
  People have talked about the concern that they have about business 
method patents that are being issued. I am not saying that all those 
objections are correct. A lot of concern has been raised about 
patenting of the human genome, and whether we have met all the 
requirements under patent law as to the utility bar.
  We cannot do a good job in the Patent Office if we do not have 
adequate tools, both personnel, also good computer systems to develop 
prior art. That is why these funds are very important.
  I think it is time to take a stand as a Congress that we are not 
going to allow the funds to be diverted anymore. The administration, I 
am ashamed to say, has not fully funded it, but the bill is even worse 
than the administration. We need to stand up for innovation in this 
country.
  Santa Clara County, my home, is number one in the number of patents 
issued in the world, I believe. Our unemployment rate is 1.9 percent. 
The two figures are not unconnected. If Members believe in the new 
economy, if they believe that America will be prosperous and that our 
prosperity will spread across our whole population, something I feel 
strongly about, then Members need first to stand up for the protection 
of innovation.
  We cannot do that, we cannot begin that process, unless we support 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). 
I just urge those who call themselves new economy House Members to 
support this amendment, understanding that in the end the offsets in 
the amendment will not become part of this bill.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here has to be addressed in terms of 
priorities. The operation of the Patent Office is one of the few 
constitutional functions to which this body addresses itself.
  It is nice to have these cultural exchanges. As a member of the 
Committee on International Relations, we took a look at those several 
years ago and tried to pare down some money, saved a little money. But 
we really have to weigh whether or not we are going to have a lot of 
money spent on the cultural exchanges, or whether or not we are going 
to undergo a constitutional function, and that is to run the Patent 
Office.
  But somewhere in between, the person who gets lost is the small 
inventor. Patent fees have gone up over the course of the last several 
years. In discussing this with patent attorneys, I have discovered that 
many people who would wish to prosecute a patent application have been 
stymied because of the tremendous cost used in filing for that 
application. Yet, the application fees have been based upon essentially 
what it costs to run the Patent Office.
  So I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), where she said that the patent organizations, 
some of them, agreed to raise their own fees in order to keep 
operations going smoothly at the Patent Office.
  I would suggest this. I wish it were within my power so that all the 
money that was generated by the fees of the Patent Office stayed at the 
Patent Office and could be used for the prosecution of patents, to make 
it done ever more quickly.
  We are trying to shift some funds, here. I have tremendous respect 
for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and tremendous respect 
for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). But the gentleman 
from North Carolina is right in this sense, that in the patent bill 
that went through Congress this past year, and I had no small part in 
rewriting some of the provisions in it, along with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and, of course, with the leadership of 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), it became obvious that 
the purpose of the fees was to support the Patent Office.
  In fact, there is a provision in that last patent bill that we passed 
that talked about reasonableness of fees. It is a statement by Congress 
that fees are to be reasonable in order to encourage entrepreneurship 
in this country. Now we find out that the raising of the fees was used, 
and money is being paid by the inventors, to go into the general 
revenue and to run other programs. That is wrong.
  So I would suggest this. I would suggest that we vote in favor of the 
Coble amendment. It is extremely important that the Patent Office be 
able to run. If there is a problem with the Patent Office moving to the 
new headquarters, as has been suggested on the floor, I would further 
suggest that perhaps language be thrown into the conference report that 
prohibits the Patent Office from doing that if, in the wisdom of this 
body, it is determined that spending that money is not necessary.
  I would therefore encourage this body to vote in favor of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.

[[Page 12138]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coble amendment. I agree 
with all of those who suggest that the Patent Office ought to have 
enough money, enough resources, enough activity, to operate. I agree 
with those who believe that we need to enhance further development and 
creativity, new ideas, new concepts, new techniques, new ways of doing 
business.
  But I do not believe that we want to disrupt an activity that has 
been ongoing. When we look at the impact of the Coble amendment just on 
the Census Bureau itself, this amendment takes a $40 million cut from 
nondecennial programs, representing a reduction of between 22 to 29 
percent from the current House mark.
  This would shut down the Economic Censuses and the Census of 
Governments, and cripple the mapping and address listing program that 
supports all Bureau surveys. It would also curtail the continuous 
measurement pilot program slated to replace the decennial census long 
form.
  Combined with existing House action, the Census Bureau would be 
unable to deliver key economic and demographic data, as we have already 
heard. This cut would lead to the loss of 500 jobs in the Census 
Bureau, greatly disrupting the entire Census Bureau, including the 
decennial census. A cut of this magnitude could indeed cause a ripple 
effect that could even prevent the Bureau from being able to provide 
redistricting data that is needed by March 31.
  But if for no other reason than just simply one, all of us know how 
difficult it has been in many instances to convince people to fill out 
the long form. So we have gone all over America telling people that we 
needed this information, that we needed the information in order to be 
able to plan, to know who we are, where we are, what we need; that we 
needed the information for businesses to be able to determine where to 
put new stores, new plants. We needed the information so that we could 
understand the economic impact of our being.
  Now we are saying even though people have provided the information, 
let us not do anything with it. Let us not put the resources into the 
Census Bureau so that they can take this information, analyze it, 
synthesize it, put it in shape and form, and then give it back to the 
American people so it can be used.
  So it would seem to me that what we would be doing at that moment is 
simply throwing out the baby with the bath water, that we are throwing 
away information that has not been easy to come by. So I would urge, 
Mr. Chairman, that we vote down the Coble amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very spirited debate. I thank everyone. 
Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member for their courtesy. I appreciate everyone who has contributed.
  A very brief history lesson, Mr. Chairman. In 1982, patent fees were 
increased 400 percent with the assurance by the administration and the 
Congress, ``Don't worry, PTO. Keep every nickel you collect.'' In 1991, 
the patent fees were increased 67 percent to be fully self-sufficient. 
``Nobody is going to be coming tapping with your user fees, PTO. Do not 
worry about it.''
  It has been suggested that there has been no diversion. If there is 
no diversion from the PTO, we would not be here today. I am not down on 
Census and I am not down on statistics, but this is a day of choice. 
Sometimes, or strike that, oftentimes in this Chamber we are called 
upon to make hard choices. Today is one of those days. I opt for the 
Patent and Trademark Office. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully vote against the Coble 
amendment. I say regretfully because, while I fully support the 
objective of the amendment, I cannot support the program cuts it uses 
as offsets.
  The objective of the amendment is to restore to the Patent and 
Trademark Office (PTO) the ability to spend $134 million in fees paid 
by patent and trademark applicants, and thus to restore its ability to 
perform critical functions. However, I do not believe that we should 
restore these funds by cutting in half the funds provided to the 
cultural and educational exchange programs operated by the Department 
of State.
  I do not want anyone to interpret my vote against this amendment as a 
sign I condone the now-annual raids on PTO fees to pay for other 
programs. I unequivocally oppose these raids, and will work to ensure 
that such raids cannot and do not occur in the future.
  Over the past few years, Congress has diverted to other agencies 
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees paid to the PTO by patent and 
trademark applicants. The Congress has tried to cover up these 
diversions by engaging in an accounting shell game, but the end result 
each year is the same: hundreds of millions in fees paid to the PTO go 
to fund other agencies. This year, the diversion has gotten totally out 
of control. While the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 proposed 
diverting ``only''--and I use that word cynically--$113 million from 
the PTO, the appropriators saw fit to divert another $134 million, for 
an unprecedented total of almost $250 million in diverted fees. In 
other words, 25 percent of the fees paid to the PTO, or 25 cents out of 
every dollar paid by each independent inventor, would be spent for 
totally unrelated purposes.
  These diversions are not only an injustice to those who paid the 
fees, but effectively kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
  The U.S. patent system, and the PTO that administers it, deserve a 
large measure of credit for encouraging and sustaining the current 
American technology boom. As our Founders clearly recognized, the 
availability of patent protection plays a critical role in encouraging 
inventiveness. Sure enough, many information, telecommunications, 
biotechnology, and Internet technologies are patented. And, as my 
colleagues are only too aware, these recent technology advances are 
largely responsible for the greatest economic boom our nation has ever 
experienced.
  Don't just take my word for it: the central role of the PTO in 
advancing this technology boom can be seen through the array of 
technology companies, from IBM and Intel to Amazon.com and Sun 
Microsystems, that have come out in strong opposition to these funding 
cuts. The Information Technology Industry Council considers restoration 
of PTO fees important enough to score this vote in its High Tech Voting 
Guide. These technology companies recognize that the PTO must be 
adequately funded for the technology boom to be sustained.
  It is not hard to see that the funding cuts made by H.R. 4690 to the 
PTO budget will seriously impair the PTO's ability to carry out its 
critical functions, including review of patents, and thus will have a 
deleterious effect on the American technology boom. Patents already 
take too long to be processed, with the pendancy of a patent 
application currently averaging two years. Even before these funding 
cuts, the pendancy of a patent was due to rise to 31 months by 2005. 
After these cuts, will we be talking about 4 or 5 years for reviews of 
patent applications? Whether the pendancy is two years or five, it is 
clearly too long to make a patent useful in Internet time. We should be 
shortening patent pendancies, not lengthening them.
  Moreover, these cuts couldn't occur at a less opportune time. The 
workload of the PTO has grown by almost 75 percent since 1992. This 
year alone, patent and trademark filings are increasing at a dramatic 
rate--a 40 percent increase in trademark applications filings and a 12 
percent increase in patent application filings.
  The complexity of this workload has also increased dramatically. The 
technology boom in the United States has resulted in applications for 
patents on inventions in areas of technology that did not exist just a 
few years ago. On a daily basis, the PTO is asked to review 
applications for patents on such things as genetic tests, laser vision 
technologies, software, and Internet business methods. To ensure that 
it can adequately process such patents, and thus preserve the integrity 
of the patent system, the PTO must hire new examiners with the 
requisite skills in these areas, or fund extensive retraining for 
current examiners. For example, in the Internet business method area 
alone, the PTO needs to hire fifty (50) examiners with software 
engineering and business degrees. The diversion of fees will greatly 
impair the PTO's ability to handle this increasingly complex workload.
  It is also important to note that the PTO is completely funded by 
fees paid by patent and

[[Page 12139]]

trademark applicants. That's right: 100 percent funded by fees. The 
$250 million dollars that H.R. 4690 takes away from the PTO were paid 
by patent and trademark applicants expecting to receive PTO services 
for that money. The small, independent inventor who has paid 
approximately $500 to file an application or $1500 to maintain a patent 
should be outraged that his money has been diverted to other programs 
while his patent application remains stalled in bureaucratic limbo.
  In summary, I note again that diversion of PTO fees provided for in 
H.R. 4690 will greatly impair the PTO's ability to adequately fulfill 
its role in encouraging the current technology boom. Furthermore, these 
fee diversions are a manifest injustice to the inventors who pay them.
  However, I cannot support eviscerating one valuable program to 
restore funds taken from another. Thus, I must regretfully vote against 
this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble) will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis); amendment No. 56 offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103, 
noes 288, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--103

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Capuano
     Castle
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Hall (TX)
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Lee
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Owens
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--288

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Boehner
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Coburn
     Cook
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Ewing
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Smith (WA)
     Tauzin
     Vento
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1335

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Mrs. 
THURMAN, and Messrs. STUPAK, FOLEY, LoBIONDO, PETRI, QUINN, and BOYD 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. THOMPSON of California, FORD, CUMMINGS, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. 
BERKLEY, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. FARR of 
California, Ms. McKINNEY, Mr. COYNE, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. RIVERS, Ms. 
SLAUGHTER, Messrs. CAPUANO, DELAHUNT, OWENS, LaFALCE, McNULTY, JACKSON 
of Illinois, WEINER, TIERNEY, McGOVERN, CROWLEY, BALDACCI, RAHALL, Ms. 
LEE, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Ms. WATERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr. KENNEDY 
of Rhode Island changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which

[[Page 12140]]

the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Coble

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 56 offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 223, not voting 66, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               AYES--145

     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Larson
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Fattah
     Foley
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--66

     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehner
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Cook
     Deal
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Markey
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Pascrell
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Scarborough
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Vento
     Waters
     Watkins
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1344

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was not 
able to attend the vote on the amendment to H.R. 4690 offered by Mr. 
Coble today. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained attending my 
son's high school graduation and missed rollcall votes 319-321. If I 
had been here, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 
319: ``Yes'' (amendment to retain power to conduct tobacco litigation). 
Rollcall 320: ``No'' (amendment requiring overtime pay to Department of 
Justice lawyers). Rollcall 321: ``Yes'' (transferring fees to support 
Patent and Trademark Office).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support H.R. 
4690, the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Bill. Mr. Chairman, by 
passing this bill the House will take an important stand against 
methamphetamine production across this country.
  The drug, Methamphetamine, is produced in the backseats of cars, in 
motel rooms, in homes, and even in toilets. This drug is composed of 
products like battery acid, Draino, bleach, and lighter fluid. This 
drug can be injected, inhaled, or smoked. People around this country 
are actually inhaling battery acid and bleach that was mixed in 
somebody's toilet. The negative effects of this on the human body are 
horrendous: insomnia, depression, malnutrition, liver failure, brain 
damage, and death.
  This terrible drug not only affects those who use it but can also be 
deadly to innocent Americans whose homes are near these labs. In my 
home State of Oklahoma over the past year, we have had over 1,000 
methamphetamine labs explode or need to be cleaned up by the Oklahoma 
State Bureau of Investigation. And, every time one of these labs 
explodes families are exposed to toxic and lethal fumes that are 
disbursed to the surrounding neighborhood. Innocent young children and 
seniors are rushed to the emergency room to be treated for inhalation 
of these toxic and deadly fumes.
  By passing H.R. 4690, the House will fund $45 million to state and 
local law enforcement agencies to help combat methamphetamine 
production and meth lab cleanup. This money will start to turn back the 
tide against these labs, and protect our families and neighborhoods. 
This money will be used to train officers to find these labs and most 
importantly clean the toxic remains of these labs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand with me today against 
this dangerous, deadly drug and support the Commerce Justice State 
Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the


fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________