[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12310-12368]
[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 Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 50, line 18 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 45, line 1, through page 50, line 18, 
is as follows:

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $140,000,000.


                     Periodic Censuses and Programs

       For necessary expenses to conduct the decennial census, 
     $392,898,000 to remain available until expended: of which 
     $24,055,000 is for Program Development and Management; of 
     which $57,096,000 is for Data Content and Products; of which 
     $122,000,000 is for Field Data Collection and Support 
     Systems; of which $1,500,000 is for Address List Development; 
     of which $115,038,000 is for Automated Data Processing and 
     Telecommunications Support; of which $55,000,000 is for 
     Testing and Evaluation; of which $5,512,000 is for activities 
     related to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Pacific Areas; 
     of which $9,197,000 is for Marketing, Communications and 
     Partnerships activities; and of which $3,500,000 is for the 
     Census Monitoring Board, as authorized by section 210 of 
     Public Law 105-119.
       In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics 
     for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $137,969,000, to remain available until expended.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     (NTIA), $10,975,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs 
     incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations, 
     and related services and such fees shall be retained and used 
     as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum 
     services, to remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, NTIA shall not authorize spectrum use or provide any 
     spectrum functions pursuant to the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     Organization Act, 47 U.S.C. 902-903, to any Federal entity 
     without reimbursement as required by NTIA for such spectrum 
     management costs, and Federal entities withholding payment of 
     such cost shall not use spectrum: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as 
     offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously 
     transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs 
     incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and 
     related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication 
     Sciences of NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions 
     under this paragraph, and such funds received from other 
     Government agencies shall remain available until expended.


    Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $31,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $1,800,000 shall be 
     available for program administration as authorized by section 
     391 of the Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year 
     unobligated balances may be made available for grants for 
     projects for which applications have been submitted and 
     approved during any fiscal year.


                   Information Infrastructure Grants

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $15,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for program administration and other support 
     activities as authorized by section 391: Provided further, 
     That, of the funds appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 
     percent may be available for telecommunications research 
     activities for projects related directly to the development 
     of a national information infrastructure: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding the requirements of sections 392(a) and 
     392(c) of the Act, these funds may be used for the planning 
     and construction of telecommunications networks for the 
     provision of educational, cultural, health care, public 
     information, public safety, or other social services: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no entity that receives telecommunications services at 
     preferential rates under section 254(h) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 
     254(h)) or receives assistance under the regional information 
     sharing systems grant program of the Department of Justice 
     under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may use funds under a 
     grant under this heading to cover any costs of the entity 
     that would otherwise be covered by such preferential rates or 
     such assistance, as the case may be.

                      Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted 
     against the Director of Patents and Trademarks, $650,035,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of this 
     amount, $650,035,000 shall be derived from offsetting 
     collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 
     and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and shall be retained and used for 
     necessary expenses in this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall 
     be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2001, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at $0: Provided 
     further, That, during fiscal year 2001, should the total 
     amount of offsetting fee collections be less than 
     $650,035,000, the total amounts available to the Patent and 
     Trademark Office shall be reduced accordingly: Provided 
     further, That any amount received in excess of $650,035,000 
     in fiscal year 2001 shall not be available for obligation: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $254,889,000 from fees 
     collected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 shall be made 
     available for obligation in fiscal year 2001.

                         Science and Technology

                       Technology Administration


       Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $7,945,000.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             Scientific and Technical Research and Services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $292,056,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may

[[Page 12311]]

     be transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.


                     Industrial Technology Services

       For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, $104,836,000, to remain available until expended.


                  Construction of Research Facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, and for renovation of 
     existing facilities, not otherwise provided for the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized by 15 
     U.S.C. 278c-278e, $26,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to that portion of 
the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  Operations, Research, and Facilities

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft; 
     grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit 
     organizations for the purposes of conducting activities 
     pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of 
     facilities as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i, $1,606,925,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That fees and 
     donations received by the National Ocean Service for the 
     management of the national marine sanctuaries may be retained 
     and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those 
     activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, 
     That in addition, $68,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products 
     and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided 
     further, That grants to States pursuant to sections 306 and 
     306A of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided further, That, of the 
     $1,734,925,000 provided for in direct obligations under this 
     heading (of which $1,606,925,000 is appropriated from the 
     General Fund, $92,000,000 is provided by transfer, and 
     $36,000,000 is derived from deobligations from prior years), 
     $260,561,000 shall be for the National Ocean Service, 
     $405,383,000 shall be for the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service, $264,561,000 shall be for Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Research, $621,726,000 shall be for the National Weather 
     Service, $106,585,000 shall be for the National Environmental 
     Satellite, Data, and Information Service, $58,094,000 shall 
     be for Program Support, $7,000,000 shall be for Fleet 
     Maintenance, and $11,015,000 shall be for Facilities 
     Maintenance: Provided further, That not to exceed $31,439,000 
     shall be expended for Executive Direction and Administration, 
     which consists of the Offices of the Undersecretary, the 
     Executive Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Planning, 
     International Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, 
     Sustainable Development, the Chief Scientist, and the General 
     Counsel: Provided further, That the aforementioned offices, 
     excluding the Office of the General Counsel, shall not be 
     augmented by personnel details, temporary transfers of 
     personnel on either a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis 
     or any other type of formal or informal transfer or 
     reimbursement of personnel or funds on either a temporary or 
     long-term basis above the level of 33 personnel: Provided 
     further, That no general administrative charge shall be 
     applied against an assigned activity included in this Act 
     and, further, that any direct administrative expenses applied 
     against an assigned activity shall be limited to 5 percent of 
     the funds provided for that assigned activity: Provided 
     further, That any use of deobligated balances of funds 
     provided under this heading in previous years shall be 
     subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this 
     Act.


           Amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Farr of California

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

       Amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       Page 51, lines 3, 16, and 17, after each dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $85,772,000)''.
       Page 51, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $18,277,000)''.
       Page 51, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $16,343,000)''.
       Page 51, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $35,941,000)''.
       Page 51, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 52, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,459,000)''.
       Page 52, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,243,000)''.
       Page 52, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $9,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I want to thank the chairman for giving us 5 minutes 
on this very important amendment.
  I rise with this amendment to restore the whacking that the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken in this appropriation 
bill. The chairman of the subcommittee and I are fond of discussing 
that Kentucky does not have a lot of oceans, but I am fond of reminding 
everyone that this land is the land from sea to shining sea and that 
some of those ocean waters begin in Kentucky.

                              {time}  1615

  My amendment restores the cuts to this year's current levels. I am 
not asking for an increase, merely a restoration of what the current 
level is, meeting the status quo.
  The earmark in the bill is 76 percent less than what the President 
requested. The subcommittee cut several programs from current levels. 
They cut the National Ocean Service. They cut the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. They cut the Oceanic and Atmosphere Research 
Service. They cut the National Environmental Satellite Service. They 
cut the Pacific Salmon Treaty program by $12 million, less than its 
current level funding. They cut the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
  The cuts, according to NOAA, will result in staffing cuts up to a 
thousand of our Federal employees that will have to be laid off at a 
time when we are in more need of good natural science information than 
any other time in history. These cuts have unintended consequences.
  We have programs in agriculture that need to be reviewed and need 
permits. We have programs in the fisheries that need to be reviewed and 
need permits. We have programs relating to endangered species. We have 
programs relating to forest management. And these staff persons are the 
people that review these and grant the permits that are allowed to 
continue in those endeavors.
  If we look at where we are with NOAA, this is the 30th anniversary of 
that organization. We are very proud of its work here in the United 
States. But this bill's birthday present is kind of a slap in the face. 
This bill tells the story. The cuts to NOAA, essentially, went to pay 
for prisons.
  I know it is sad that we have to cut these programs from the current 
expenditure because of the allocation cap given by the Republican 
budget resolution. That figure did not say that we had to plus up the 
prisons at the expense of good science.
  Perhaps some cynic might suggest that the cutting of our 
environmental regulators will create more law breakers who have to then 
wait too long to get permits who violate the law and then we will have 
to put them in those new prisons that we are building.
  I do not agree with that. I think that this Nation's inhabitants and 
our own economic well-being depend on our ability to have clean air and 
healthy oceans. These cuts promote neither, Mr. Chairman. They must be 
restored.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr) for offering this amendment.
  He has outlined the kind of damage that the committee budget does to 
the National Marines Fisheries Service.
  I would just point out that the budget for Fisheries Stock Assessment 
and Management programs will hinder our conservation efforts and hurt 
the commercial fishing industry on our Pacific Coast. In California, 
where we are facing the collapse of our groundfish stocks, the ability 
to collect data and to fund an observer program will be

[[Page 12312]]

critical to the survival of this fishery and the fishing industry.
  But this is not just a West Coast problem, however. Throughout the 
United States, fish stocks have become depleted, wetlands that are 
important nursery areas for young fish stocks are being destroyed and 
damaged due to pollution and human encroachment. At such a critical 
time, it seems illogical to cut the programs that fund the ocean and 
marine science that will lead to a better stewardship of our oceans and 
the sustainable use of these ocean resources.
  This modest amendment is far below the administration's request for 
what they thought was necessary for NOAA. I urge the Members of 
Congress to support this amendment. This can have a long-term, 
devastating impact on the commercial fisheries, which are basically 
made up of small business people running their boats, running their 
family operations; and if we cannot keep these stocks up into healthy 
populations, then those people will be put out of business and they 
will lose their livelihood for themselves and their families and for 
their communities.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for offering the 
amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is 
going to reserve his point of order. We will probably lose on a 
technicality. But I just want to emphasize my sincere concern that, in 
conference, that these monies need to be restored.
  The greatest populations of the United States live along the 
coastlines and they make their living off the coastlines. If we look at 
the cuts, these affect the essential coastal communities in the United 
States and their ability to do the job they need to do working in 
partnership with good Government. So these are going to have 
devastating impacts, particularly if we have to lay off a thousand 
employees who are now currently working for the Federal Government.
  So I would request that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) work 
in a bipartisan fashion to help in conference restore these funds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, before I make the point of order, let me say, the 
interest of the gentleman is appreciated, his long-term support of 
NOAA, but I must oppose the amendment.
  The bill provides for a whole host of coastal and ocean programs, 
including $25.5 million for the Marine Sanctuaries program, including 
$3 million for construction and maintenance, the same level as current 
year, with the exception of a one-time-only Senate project.
  Last year the bill included an enhancement of $8.6 million over the 
prior year. It also provides $12 million for the National Estuarine 
Research Reserve System and $59.2 million for the Coastal Zone 
Management Grant Program, the same level as in the current year.
  The bill provides $58 million for the Pacific salmon recovery 
efforts, subject to authorization, the same amount of funding in the 
current year. It provides an increase of $4.2 million over the current 
year for the West Coast Ground Fishery, including $2 million for a new 
beneficiary observer program and $2 million for stock assessments, 
almost doubling the program.
  The bill also provides $61.3 million for the National Sea Grant 
Program, an increase of $2 million over current year.
  What it does not include is a number of new unauthorized and 
undefined programs. But, overall, this is a very generous bill. We will 
work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and others as we go 
along to see what may be possible.
  With our tight spending constraints we are under, however, this is as 
far as we have been able to go at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I do 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 suballocation made under 
302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no other Members wishing to be 
heard, the Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the 
Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary 
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of 
such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the 
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.


            Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 70 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       Page 51, line 3, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,200,000)''.
       Page 51, line 16, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,200,000)''.
       Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,200,000)''.
       Page 51, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,200,000)''.
       Page 53, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,200,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which simply adds $1.2 
million to the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to provide 
needed funds for the Hawaii Longline Observer Program. Due to lack of 
funds, 14 observers that we had had to be cut to only a force of two 
observers in mid-May of this year.
  The observer program began about 10 years ago to provide accurate 
data on the number of endangered and threatened sea turtles that are 
caught by the fleet of about 130 longline fishing vessels in the 
Pacific. They come under the jurisdiction of the United States because 
of the agreement that the zone which constitutes the 200 miles 
surrounding Hawaii is the economic zone over which we have economic as 
well as commercial and scientific and endangered species control.
  I regret that I did not have this information in time to bring this 
matter to the subcommittee and to discuss it with the chairman and with 
the ranking member. These observers are extremely important to the 
proper management of the fisheries.
  Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service is responsible for evaluating the impact of the longline 
fishery on the endangered and threatened sea turtles. Over the past 
decades, several biological opinions resulted, each requiring the 
observer program as a condition of the ongoing operation of this 
longline fishery.
  The most recent opinion, issued in 1998, specified that the National 
Marine Fisheries Service was to continue to monitor the longline 
fishery with this observer program. The effort is absolutely essential 
in order to provide us with the data necessary to make an evaluation as 
to the take by this fishery.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service has been under a court order to 
monitor these endangered species, and last year the Court ordered that 
the

[[Page 12313]]

Northern Pacific area actually be banned from this fishery.
  Last week, when I prepared this amendment and came to the floor, it 
was in terms of a crisis. Today it is a calamity. I appeal to the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member to agree to this 
amendment and to allow this very minimal funding.
  On Friday last week, June 23, Judge Ezra of the United States 
District Court ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide 
one observer per longline fishing vessel currently fishing in the 
Hawaiian waters. That means 130 observers for our fleet.
  Currently, the Fishery Service maintains only two observers. As I 
noted earlier, they fired the other 12 on May 9.
  The Court has noted that the Marine Fishery Service has had a 
budgetary problem. But the Court clearly stated that the compliance 
with the National Environment Act was a legal requirement that had to 
be met and, therefore, ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to 
comply with NEPA in an expeditious manner in order to avoid an undue 
burden on the fisheries.
  Well, the court order requires that within 30 days there shall be one 
observer on each one of the longline line vessels. That is nearly 
impossible.
  What I am hoping today that the chairman and the ranking member will 
agree to, this amendment, that at least we can begin a discussion with 
the Court, perhaps go to the Court and seek a modification of his 
order. He has already blocked off whole portions of the Pacific as 
areas that cannot be fished. What is left is a small portion of the 
Pacific, but even that will be involved in a ban if we cannot come up 
with the observers.
  This 30-day mandate may be subject to appeal. It may be subject to 
negotiations with the Court. But one thing I do know is that if the 
House, together with the Senate, acts appropriately, this could 
certainly be a measure of support that we could take to the Court and 
ask for its reasonableness.
  This is a $170 million industry that is going to go down the tubes. 
Not only the industry and our economy will be affected, but the 
tourists coming to Hawaii will not have the fresh fish source that it 
is accustomed to having when they come to Hawaii.
  The United States has jurisdiction over the 200-mile economic zone. 
If we fail to support our fishery with some reasonable efforts, surely 
we want to save the turtles, but we also have to think about this 
fishery. And if the U.S. fishery collapses in this area, it means that 
the foreign fisheries that are now sending out its massive fleets will 
simply take over the industry and we will be subject to buying from 
these foreign vessels.
  The species that we are talking about are tuna, swordfish, mahi-mahi, 
the highly-prized species that make up the gourmet meals in our 
industry.
  I would hope that the chairman would agree to this amendment together 
with the ranking member.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes an awfully strong case. We were 
just informed this morning on the subcommittee of the decision of the 
Court. I realize that it puts everyone in a very severe bind. I think 
we should agree to this. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mrs. Mink's 
amendment supporting additional funding for the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. It is her intent that this funding be used to 
support the Hawaii Longline Fisheries Observer Program, a threatened 
program absolutely essential to fisheries in the Pacific. The observer 
program is used to ensure that the longlining industry in the Pacific 
is not capturing, through incidental take, rare and endangered species 
such as leatherback sea turtles. NMFS has stated that it is mandatory 
that the observer program be in place to monitor the longline fishery, 
yet has cut this program from 13 to 2 people because of budget 
shortfalls. A proposed lawsuit threatens to close down the fishery 
entirely without observers, and we can not allow this to happen. We 
need to get the observers back on the boats where they belong! The 
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has been supportive of the 
observer program as it provides important data needed for effective 
management. It is my understanding that the proposed budget includes 
funding for other observer programs, but that the Hawaiian longline 
observer program is sorely neglected. I urge support of this program by 
Congress in order to correct this oversight as a matter of fairness to 
fisheries in the Pacific.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the 
     Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits 
     Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel 
     and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act 
     (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.


   Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (including transfers of 
                                 funds)

       For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital 
     assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     $564,656,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That unexpended balances of amounts previously made available 
     in the ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'' account for 
     activities funded under this heading may be transferred to 
     and merged with this account, to remain available until 
     expended for the purposes for which the funds were originally 
     appropriated.


                    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery

       For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of 
     Pacific salmon populations and the implementation of the 1999 
     Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and 
     Canada, $58,000,000, subject to express authorization.


                      Coastal Zone Management Fund

       Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed 
     $4,000,000, for purposes set forth in sections 308(b)(2)(A), 
     308(b)(2)(B)(v), and 315(e) of such Act.


                      Fishermen's Contingency Fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95-372, not to exceed $951,000, to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     Foreign Fishing Observer Fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law 
     96-339), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627), and 
     the American Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), to 
     be derived from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery 
     observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed 
     $189,000, to remain available until expended.


                   fisheries finance program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $238,000, as authorized by 
     the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading may be used for direct loans for 
     any new fishing vessel that will increase the harvesting 
     capacity in any United States fishery.

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $31,392,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11, as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $21,000,000.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

       Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that 
     such payments are in the public interest.
       Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances

[[Page 12314]]

     therefore, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and 
     activities that are under the control of the United States 
     Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this or any 
     previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department 
     of Commerce, shall be available to reimburse the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund or any other fund or account of the Treasury to 
     pay for any expenses authorized by section 8501 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for services performed by individuals 
     appointed to temporary positions within the Bureau of the 
     Census for purposes relating to the decennial censuses of 
     population.
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 206. (a) Should legislation be enacted to dismantle or 
     reorganize the Department of Commerce, or any portion 
     thereof, the Secretary of Commerce, no later than 90 days 
     thereafter, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate a plan for 
     transferring funds provided in this Act to the appropriate 
     successor organizations: Provided, That the plan shall 
     include a proposal for transferring or rescinding funds 
     appropriated herein for agencies or programs terminated under 
     such legislation: Provided further, That such plan shall be 
     transmitted in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
       (b) The Secretary of Commerce or the appropriate head of 
     any successor organization(s) may use any available funds to 
     carry out legislation dismantling or reorganizing the 
     Department of Commerce, or any portion thereof, to cover the 
     costs of actions relating to the abolishment, reorganization, 
     or transfer of functions and any related personnel action, 
     including voluntary separation incentives if authorized by 
     such legislation: Provided, That the authority to transfer 
     funds between appropriations accounts that may be necessary 
     to carry out this section is provided in addition to 
     authorities included under section 205 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 207. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this title resulting from personnel actions 
     taken in response to funding reductions included in this 
     title or from actions taken for the care and protection of 
     loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within 
     the total budgetary resources available to such Department or 
     agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds 
     between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section is provided in addition to authorities 
     included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of 
     funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 208. The Secretary of Commerce may award contracts for 
     hydrographic, geodetic, and photogrammetric surveying and 
     mapping services in accordance with title IX of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     541 et seq.).
       Sec. 209. The Secretary of Commerce may use the Commerce 
     franchise fund for expenses and equipment necessary for the 
     maintenance and operation of such administrative services as 
     the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously 
     as central services, pursuant to section 403 of Public Law 
     103-356: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other 
     assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such 
     fund, either on hand or on order, less the related 
     liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations 
     made for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to 
     capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall 
     be paid in advance from funds available to the Department and 
     other Federal agencies for which such centralized services 
     are performed, at rates which will return in full all 
     expenses of operation, including accrued leave, depreciation 
     of fund plant and equipment, amortization of automated data 
     processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or 
     donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable 
     operating reserve, as determined by the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That such fund shall provide services on a 
     competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to 
     exceed 4 percent of the total annual income to such fund may 
     be retained in the fund for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to be 
     used for the acquisition of capital equipment, and for the 
     improvement and implementation of department financial 
     management, ADP, and other support systems: Provided further, 
     That such amounts retained in the fund for fiscal year 2001 
     and each fiscal year thereafter shall be available for 
     obligation and expenditure only in accordance with section 
     605 of this Act: Provided further, That no later than 30 days 
     after the end of each fiscal year, amounts in excess of this 
     reserve limitation shall be deposited as miscellaneous 
     receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That such 
     franchise fund pilot program shall terminate pursuant to 
     section 403(f ) of Public Law 103-356.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                        TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance, 
     and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to 
     exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate 
     Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve; $36,782,000.


                    care of the building and grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     the Architect by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-
     13b), $7,530,000, of which $4,460,000 shall remain available 
     until expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers 
     and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as 
     authorized by law, $17,846,000.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries 
     of the officers and employees of the court, services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the 
     court, as authorized by law, $12,299,000.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including 
     judges of the territorial courts of the United States), 
     justices and judges retired from office or from regular 
     active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other 
     officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise 
     specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the 
     courts, as authorized by law, $3,328,778,000 (including the 
     purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed 
     $17,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space 
     alteration projects; and of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended for furniture and 
     furnishings related to new space alteration and construction 
     projects.
       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed 
     $2,600,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                           defender services

       For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community 
     Defender organizations; the compensation and reimbursement of 
     expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 
     the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended; the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons 
     furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the 
     Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)); the 
     compensation (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act 
     maximums) and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys 
     appointed to assist the court in criminal cases where the 
     defendant has waived representation by counsel; the 
     compensation and reimbursement of travel expenses of 
     guardians ad litem acting on behalf of financially eligible 
     minor or incompetent offenders in connection with transfers 
     from the United States to foreign countries with which the 
     United States has a treaty for the execution of penal 
     sentences; and the compensation of attorneys appointed to 
     represent jurors in civil actions for the protection of their 
     employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1875(d), $420,338,000, 
     to remain available until expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 
     3006A(i).


                    fees of jurors and commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule

[[Page 12315]]

     71A(h)), $60,821,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the compensation of land commissioners shall 
     not exceed the daily equivalent of the highest rate payable 
     under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.


                             court security

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to providing protective guard services and the 
     procurement, installation, and maintenance of security 
     equipment for the United States Courts in courtrooms and 
     adjacent areas, including building ingress-egress control, 
     inspection of packages, directed security patrols, and other 
     similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of the 
     Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 
     100-702), $198,265,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended for security systems, 
     to be expended directly or transferred to the United States 
     Marshals Service, which shall be responsible for 
     administering elements of the Judicial Security Program 
     consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts and the Attorney General.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $58,340,000, 
     of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $18,777,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2002, 
     to provide education and training to Federal court personnel; 
     and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    payment to judiciary trust funds

       For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $25,700,000; to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $8,100,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $1,900,000.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     $9,615,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                   General Provisions--The Judiciary

       Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but 
     no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District 
     Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and 
     ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 
     Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', shall be 
     increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: 
     Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts, 
     courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       Sec. 304. (a) The Director of the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts (the Director) may designate in 
     writing officers and employees of the judicial branch of the 
     United States Government, including the courts as defined in 
     section 610 of title 28, United States Code, but excluding 
     the Supreme Court, to be disbursing officers in such numbers 
     and locations as the Director considers necessary. These 
     disbursing officers will (1) disburse moneys appropriated to 
     the judicial branch and other funds only in strict accordance 
     with payment requests certified by the Director or in 
     accordance with subsection (b) of this section, (2) examine 
     payment requests as necessary to ascertain whether they are 
     in proper form, certified, and approved, and (3) be held 
     accountable as provided by law. However, a disbursing officer 
     will not be held accountable or responsible for any illegal, 
     improper, or incorrect payment resulting from any false, 
     inaccurate, or misleading certificate for which a certifying 
     officer is responsible under subsection (b) of this section.
       (b)(1) The Director may designate in writing officers and 
     employees of the judicial branch of the United States 
     Government, including the courts as defined in section 610 of 
     title 28, United States Code, but excluding the Supreme 
     Court, to certify payment requests payable from 
     appropriations and funds. These certifying officers will be 
     responsible and accountable for (A) the existence and 
     correctness of the facts recited in the certificate or other 
     request for payment or its supporting papers, (B) the 
     legality of the proposed payment under the appropriation or 
     fund involved, and (C) the correctness of the computations of 
     certified payment requests.
       (2) The liability of a certifying officer will be enforced 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as provided by law 
     with respect to the enforcement of the liability of 
     disbursing and other accountable officers. A certifying 
     officer shall be required to make restitution to the United 
     States for the amount of any illegal, improper, or incorrect 
     payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading 
     certificates made by the certifying officer, as well as for 
     any payment prohibited by law or which did not represent a 
     legal obligation under the appropriation or fund involved.
       (c) A certifying or disbursing officer (1) has the right to 
     apply for and obtain a decision by the Comptroller General on 
     any question of law involved in a payment request presented 
     for certification, and (2) is entitled to relief from 
     liability arising under this section as provided by law.
       (d) The Director shall disburse, directly or through 
     officials designated pursuant to this section, appropriations 
     and other funds for the maintenance and operation of the 
     courts.
       (e) Nothing in this section affects the authority of the 
     courts to receive or disburse moneys in accordance with 
     chapter 129 of title 28, United States Code.
       (f) This section shall be effective for fiscal year 2001 
     and hereafter.
       This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 2001''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 69, line 19 be 
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to those sections?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956, as amended, the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, and the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 
     including employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 
     section 801 of such Act; expenses authorized by section 9 of 
     the Act of August 31, 1964, as amended; representation to 
     certain international organizations in which the United 
     States participates pursuant to treaties, ratified pursuant 
     to the advice and consent of the Senate, or specific Acts of 
     Congress; arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament 
     activities as authorized by the Arms Control and Disarmament 
     Act of September 26, 1961, as amended; acquisition by 
     exchange or purchase of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by law; and for expenses of general 
     administration, $2,689,825,000: Provided, That, of the amount 
     made available under this heading, not to exceed $4,000,000 
     may be transferred to, and merged with, funds in the 
     ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'' 
     appropriations account, to be available only for emergency 
     evacuations and terrorism rewards: Provided further, That, in 
     fiscal year 2001, all receipts collected from individuals for 
     assistance in the preparation and filing of an affidavit of 
     support pursuant to section 213A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act shall be deposited into this account as an 
     offsetting collection and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That, of the amount made 
     available under this heading, $246,644,000 shall be available 
     only for public diplomacy international information programs: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, not to exceed $342,667,000 of offsetting collections 
     derived from fees collected under the authority of section 
     140(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Years 1994

[[Page 12316]]

     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) during fiscal year 2001 shall 
     be retained and used for authorized expenses in this 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any fees received in excess of 
     $342,667,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall remain available until 
     expended, but shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 2001: Provided further, That advances for services 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 3620(c) may be credited to this 
     account, to remain available until expended for such 
     services.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 71, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 79, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers). I appreciate the fact that he has been working with us on this 
amendment and other related amendments that directly affect the 
constituency of South San Diego County.
  Mr. Chairman, in my hometown of Imperial Beach, we spend our summers 
being greeted by this sign. It is a sign that many people in America 
see every once in awhile, but in I.B., sadly much too often. As a 
surfer and a diver, it is something that all of us who spend time in 
the water care a lot about, especially those of us who have children 
who spend time in the water.
  The difference in Imperial Beach and in Coronado is that the 
pollution that causes this sign does not come from a factory or a 
business or a community in America that is not taking care of its 
problems. Imperial Beach and Coronado in South San Diego County has 
been required by the EPA and the Federal Government to clean up their 
act so they do not pollute their beaches.
  The pollution that causes this sign comes from a foreign country 
crossing our international boundary and entering the United States and 
polluting our U.S. territorial waters and endangering the lives of 
children and the families of American citizens on American soil.
  Mr. Chairman, these two photos are a classic example of a technology 
that I have been working with the chairman on, remote sensing. One will 
actually be able to picture here the pollution or the turbidity coming 
across and entering the United States. One of the problems we have in 
San Diego is the Tijuana River flows from the urban areas of Tijuana, 
Mexico, and flows north into the United States and then enters the 
Pacific Ocean after going through a Federal estuarine and wildlife 
preserve. Supposedly one of the most protected Federal lands in America 
is an estuary and preserve with a designation of research capabilities.
  This pollution is not something new. It is something we have been 
putting up with since I was a child. It has become chronic over the 
last 20 years with the extensive growth in Mexico, and at the same time 
the Federal Government is requiring every city and every community in 
America to address its nonpoint sources coming out of its flood control 
channels and its storm drains.
  The United States Federal Government, through the International 
Boundary and Water Commission, has owned a flood control channel 
entering the country that constitutes the largest single pollutant 
source in San Diego County, and I am here to ask for support for an 
amendment that says the Federal Government will hold itself to the same 
standards that it demands on everybody else. We will not allow sewage 
to enter this country and run down a federally owned flood control 
system and pollute our estuaries and our preserve areas and our beaches 
and our children and their playground.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides $500,000 to be able to develop a 
system so that at this flood control channel as it enters the United 
States, the United States will be able to defend its citizens by 
catching the sewage, diverting it out of the flood control system and 
put it into a sewage system through an outfall and treatment concept.
  Without this system, without this $500,000, the citizens of the 
United States who live in this area are exposed to a foreign 
government's whim, at when they want to dump raw sewage on the United 
States and when they do not.
  Now I strongly believe that we need to have peacekeeping and 
intervention all over the world, but I would ask my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and I would ask the ranking member to consider 
this: Who do we owe more obligation to to defend from foreign 
intervention than U.S. citizens on their own soil in their own 
neighborhoods?
  Now, understand that this is not a wealthy area. This is a working-
class neighborhood. It has high minority numbers, and some of us may 
say, well, that is why it has been ignored for so long.
  I do not think so. I think it is because we do not understand the 
border and the border region. I like to think that it is a 
misunderstanding that has caused this situation.
  So I am asking that both the majority and the minority accept an 
amendment that says we have ignored this public health threat too long; 
we are willing to address this issue, and we are willing to make this 
commitment. Just as we make a commitment to people all over the world 
to stop the pollution problems that are affecting their neighborhoods, 
we are now finally going to address the issue here in the United 
States.
  Again, this is not a problem being created by the people in this 
neighborhood. This is a threat that begins in a foreign government and 
then travels.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray) has expired.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a whole lot of other things that I want to 
work with the chairman on. We have maintenance issues at this plant. We 
built a $200 million plant, and it is not properly maintained; the 
parts are not there. But I am asking just for this amendment now as a 
sign that the United States will do everything it can to defend its 
citizens from foreign pollution on U.S. soil.
  At this time, I ask both the majority and the minority, this is a 
chance for us to all pull together. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) represents part of this area. I represent the other. Here is a 
chance to show true bipartisan support, true bipartisan commitment, to 
defending Americans and protect the environment no matter what their 
party affiliation, no matter what neighborhoods they live in.
  Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments before the committee today 
which I would like to explain for my colleagues. The purpose of my 
amendments is very straightforward. Let me first express that I have 
great respect and appreciation for the subcommittee chairman, Hal 
Rogers, and the challenges he's had to address in order to prepare his 
bill. I know that the limits of your allocation have made for difficult 
decisions, and I commend you for assembling such a good bill under 
these though circumstances. I am also very appreciative of the 
chairman's willingness to work with me in order to address the 
difficult public health and environmental problems my district faces as 
a result of untreated sewage flows from Mexico.
  In mid-1999, at my request, the city of San Diego initiated a study 
to determine the usefulness of satellite remote imaging for mapping and 
monitoring the dispersion of sewage discharges in the United States-
Mexico border region.
  The objectives of this study were to (1) to demonstrate what type of 
remote sensing data can be useful for imaging effluent plumes, and (2) 
to validate information obtained by remote sensing data with field 
data. While the number

[[Page 12317]]

of image sets available were limited, the results of this study 
indicate that all the remote sensing data types can significantly 
contribute to determining the contributions and extent of the sewage 
runoff discharges that affect the United States-Mexico border region. 
Among other things, this will help in isolating the true effects of the 
South Bay Ocean Outfall from ``false'' signals created from effluent 
from other shoreline sources.
  The satellite images in this study, two of which I have enlarged here 
today for my colleagues to see, show distinct near-shore turbidity 
patterns as well as larger-scale patterns extending further offshore. 
It is helpful to understand that the major turbidity signals within the 
near-shore zone are linked to terrestrial effluent discharges or 
runoff, as opposed to the stirring up of bottom sediments by winds, 
waves, or tidal currents.
  The image in figure 1 of the report was not preceded by any 
appreciable rain for more than three days. There are four areas where 
fresh discharge can be identified--the Tijuana River, a couple of 
smaller areas just south of there, the San Antonio Los Buenos treatment 
facility, and Los Buenos Creek. In figure 2, this image was acquired 
just 24 hours after a 2-day rain event, and clearly shows fresh runoff 
plumes from numerous sources.
  Clearly, this type of imaging can yield tremendous volumes of 
information which will be critical in helping to monitor, track, and 
respond to sources of ocean pollution plumes. I have prepared an 
amendment (#45) that would provide $200,000 to the IBWC, for the 
purposes of continuing to provide this kind of satellite image 
monitoring. My amendment would be offset from the Department of State's 
Diplomatic and Consular Affairs account.
  I also have at the desk another amendment which these photos will 
help to explain--located here in the photo, on the border, is the 
International Wastewater Treatment Plant. As the chairman is well 
aware, the IBWC has since 1998 been operating the U.S. International 
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP), which sits along our southern border 
with Mexico and is presently treating up to 25 mgd of Mexican sewage to 
primary levels. This effluent is then discharged via the South Bay 
Ocean Outfall. Since this plant began operation in 1998, its operations 
and maintenance costs have increased considerably, as a result of 
several factors.
  1. Pumps and other processing equipment consume large amounts of 
electrical power, and power costs at the IWTP are directly related to 
the volume of wastewater treated. Power costs at the plant have risen 
as a result of increased pumping needs at the IWTP, Smugglers' pump 
station, and Goat Canyon pump station.
  2. Perhaps even more important, is the increasing recognition of the 
need to begin recurring nonannual preventive maintenance and testing--
this includes such things as pump rebuilding, testing of electrical 
systems, and conveyor overhaul--the basic functions that make the plant 
work. What we have here is a brand new plant, which is now beginning to 
reach its maintenance cycles, and in some instances, cycles which were 
projected as 2 or 3 year are starting to be seen as annual maintenance 
needs.
  This may sound like a lot of nuts and bolts, but the outcome is what 
is critical to me and my communities, Mr. Chairman, and that is whether 
the beaches are open and safe for people to use. To paraphrase the old 
saying, for want of a pump, the plant was lost--clearly, this is the 
situation we must avoid. The IBWC has worked hard to help keep the 
beaches open in the south San Diego county region, and I don't want to 
see that change out of maintenance needs.
  I recognize that the subcommittee worked hard to level fund these 
Commissions at the existing FY 2000 levels, Mr. Chairman, but I believe 
we must find a way to provide assurances that basic maintenance needs 
do not result in threats to the public health and environment in the 
upcoming summer months. Additionally, as I have discussed with the 
chairman, it is important to ensure that the IBWC will have adequate 
funds available to operate the emergency connection to the city of San 
Diego's Point Loma treatment plant, in the event of an emergency need 
this summer.
  My amendment (#16) would transfer $5.1 million to the IBWC's salaries 
and expenses account, for the purposes of ensuring that this routine 
but critical maintenance will continue to occur. I want to clarify for 
my colleagues that, as the chairman well knows, it is in this salaries 
and expenses account that operations and maintenance funds are located; 
this amendment is not going for additional salaries, or administrative 
overhead.
  The offset for my amendment is provided out of the Department of 
State's Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, which 
is funded in the bill at $498,100,000. I don't mean to diminish the 
importance of our peacekeeping operations abroad, but I feel very 
strongly that we must first protect our own borders, in this case from 
the public health threat generated by flows of Mexican sewage that has 
been confronting my constituents for decades. Chairman Rogers knows how 
strongly I feel about this, and is due a lion's share of the credit for 
the great work this committee has done on border environmental issues 
up to this point.
  My third amendment (#17) addresses an issue with which the chairman 
is very familiar, from our ongoing discussions.
  With my previous amendment on the IBWC, I talked about ensuring that 
the IBWC is able to continue operating the plant, which treats captured 
sewage. This amendment addresses what can be a far greater problem, 
which is the flows of renegade sewage that doesn't make it into any 
pipes or plants for treatment.
  An odd fact of nature is that in this part of the region the 
watershed, rivers, and urban runoff flow north, into the United States. 
When there are rain events, or when Mexican infrastructure breaks, 
fails, or is simply turned off without warning (which happens far too 
often), raw sewage runs downhill into the canyons along the border and 
into the Tijuana Estuary, or down the Tijuana River into the flood 
control channel where it enters the United States and continues toward 
the beaches in my hometown of Imperial Beach.
  All the treatment plants in the world won't end our contamination 
problem, if there are still significant volumes which aren't ending up 
``in the pipe''. The IBWC is presently working on a plan to improve the 
capacity of the canyon sewage collectors which are now in place at Goat 
Canyon and Smuggler's Gulch, and this will certainly help.
  But the biggest ``non-point'' source of the United States side (I say 
U.S. because clearly, as the images from this report show, runoff from 
Los Buenos Creek is a major problem for both Mexican and United States 
beaches as the current takes it northward) is the Tijuana River, which 
is why I've gone to Chairman Rogers with a specific request. I believe 
it is essential that a diversionary structure be built in the flood 
control channel as it enters the United States, which could then 
capture renegade flows and divert them to the IWTP or other facilities 
for at least some level of treatment. IBWC agrees with this need, and 
is prepared to move forward with this project.
  My amendment would provide $500,000 for this purpose to the IBWC's 
construction account. It is offset from the State Department's 
Diplomatic and Consular Programs account, which is presently funded at 
$2,689,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some additional background materials, along with 
my full statement and amendments, which I would ask be entered into the 
Record at the appropriate point. I would urge my colleagues to support 
these amendments, and would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) seek to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, and without objection, 
the time in opposition is increased to 6 minutes as a result of the 
unanimous consent request of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray) for his devotion to this cause. This is a 
long-standing problem that is getting worse, and the gentleman has 
focused on this problem and devoted himself to trying to solve it. It 
is a vexing problem that crosses the international boundary line with 
Mexico and is a problem that has to be addressed really on both sides 
of the border, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has 
indeed focused our attention on the problem. It is a matter that needs 
to be addressed; and this amendment, I think, will go a long way 
towards starting the effort to solve this long-standing problem.
  So I am very pleased to accept the amendment on our side as a 
beginning point for trying to solve this long-standing problem for the 
residents of the entire area around San Diego and the adjoining area in 
Mexico.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 12318]]


  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray) for offering this amendment. We represent adjacent districts. 
He talked about a bipartisan approach. I want to illustrate that on the 
floor today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), when he was a 
county supervisor in San Diego, was at the same time that I was a city 
councilman in San Diego. Our districts pretty much meshed; and we 
worked on this together for many, many, many years. We are at the point 
of solving these problems, and with the help of this Congress we will.
  We have tried to get this diversionary structure in place. It helps 
protect our citizens from health hazards caused by the river of sewage; 
but it was built quickly and now that the international treatment plant 
is in operation, we must expand and improve the capacity. It has 
limited capacity. It clogs with silt and debris, as I am sure the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) pointed out, and it must be 
shut down for maintenance when the rains and other events make it 
exceed its capacity.
  So what the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
does is provide the funding to design improvements needed to increase 
its capacity, solve these problems.
  I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I are the 
only two Congressmen in this House that can say that raw sewage flows 
through our districts; up to 50 million gallons a day.
  We have a series of attempts to improve this situation, legislation 
that we hope will follow in the authorization process, and I thank the 
Chair and the gentleman for making this amendment and supporting it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In 1991, as a San 
Diego City Councilman, I worked with the IBWC to build a diversionary 
structure in the international flood control channel to capture 13 
million gallons per day of sewage that flowed through the Tijuana River 
to our beaches. This diversionary structure helped protect our citizens 
from the health hazards caused by this river of sewage. But it was 
built quickly. Now that the International Treatment Plant is in 
operation, the structure must be improved and its capacity expanded. 
Currently, it has a limited capacity of often clogs with silt and 
debris. Whenever flows exceed its capacity or it must be shut down for 
maintenance, raw sewage flows freely throughout the Tijuana River. This 
amendment would provide the funding to design improvements needed to 
increase its capacity and solve these problems.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, in 
support of the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). 
I would hope that this is the kind of issue that we can continue to 
solve.
  Just as an aside, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
for bringing a sign in two languages.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, actually I was a county supervisor which 
had supervision over county health; and because of all of the 
activities at the border, we decided when I was Chair that we needed to 
have it in both languages so everybody knew what was going on, 
including those who might have been visiting from down south.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray) in that. I support him in his amendment, and I hope he 
remembers that when we discuss another bill later on.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  MR. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to really thank 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his cooperation on this 
specific issue but also with the other issues, as the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) has so appropriately brought up, that we have a 
comprehensive problem here and I look forward to working with the 
chairman as this bill moves forward, making sure that we address these 
issues, these environmental issues.
  I want to sincerely thank him very much for being so sensitive to a 
problem that has been ignored for much too long.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray) again for his persistence on this matter. 
There are other areas that he is working with our subcommittee on in 
this regard, and we will continue to work with the gentleman to try to 
help solve a massive problem on our border with Mexico.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to this 
section of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, not to exceed $1,252,000 shall be derived from 
     fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use 
     of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act, as 
     amended; in addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, 
     $490,000, to be derived from the reserve authorized by that 
     section, to be used for the purposes set out in that section; 
     in addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United 
     States Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to 
     exceed $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and 
     publication programs, and from fees from educational advising 
     and counseling, and exchange visitor programs; and, in 
     addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from 
     reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House 
     facilities in accordance with section 46 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2718(a)).
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $410,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                        capital investment fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $79,670,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized in Public Law 103-236, as amended: Provided, That 
     section 135(e) of Public Law 103-236 shall not apply to funds 
     available under this heading.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $28,490,000, 
     notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, as amended (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to 
     post inspections.


               educational and cultural exchange programs

       For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs, 
     as authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, as amended (91 Stat. 
     1636), $213,771,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by section 105 of such Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2455): Provided, That not to exceed $800,000, to remain 
     available until expended, may be credited to this 
     appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in 
     connection with English teaching and educational advising and 
     counseling programs as authorized by section 810 of the 
     United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 
     1948 (22 U.S.C. 1475e).


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized by section 905 
     of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     4085), $5,826,000.


              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $8,067,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002.


            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), 
     preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for, 
     buildings that are owned or directly leased

[[Page 12319]]

     by the Department of State, renovating, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available, the Main State Building, and carrying 
     out the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as 
     authorized by title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and 
     Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), $416,976,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized by section 
     24(c) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 
     (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)), of which not to exceed $25,000 may be 
     used for domestic and overseas representation as authorized 
     by section 905 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 4085): Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
     acquisition of furniture and furnishings and generators for 
     other departments and agencies.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     acquisition, and construction as authorized by the Secure 
     Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, 
     $648,000,000, to remain available until expended.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 
     3526(e), and as authorized by section 804(3) of the United 
     States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as 
     amended, $5,477,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by section 24(c) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)), of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     Repatriation Loans Program Account, subject to the same terms 
     and conditions.


                   repatriation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $591,000, as authorized by 
     section 4 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671): Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry out 
     the direct loan program, $604,000, which may be transferred 
     to and merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs 
     account under Administration of Foreign Affairs.


              payment to the american institute in taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act, Public Law 96-8, $16,345,000.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $131,224,000.

              International Organizations and Conferences


              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $880,505,000: Provided, That 
     any payment of arrearages under this title shall be directed 
     toward special activities that are mutually agreed upon by 
     the United States and the respective international 
     organization: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for a 
     United States contribution to an international organization 
     for the United States share of interest costs made known to 
     the United States Government by such organization for loans 
     incurred on or after October 1, 1984, through external 
     borrowings: Provided further, That, of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $100,000,000 may be made available only on 
     a semi-annual basis pursuant to a certification by the 
     Secretary of State on a semi-annual basis, that the United 
     Nations has taken no action during the preceding 6 months to 
     increase funding for any United Nations program without 
     identifying an offsetting decrease during that 6-month period 
     elsewhere in the United Nations budget and cause the United 
     Nations to exceed the budget for the biennium 2000-2001 of 
     $2,535,700,000: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this paragraph may be obligated and expended to pay the 
     full United States assessment to the civil budget of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


                Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Serrano

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. I am acting as the 
designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 71 offered by Mr. Serrano:
       Page 77, strike the proviso beginning on line 2.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am acting as the designee of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Let me first tell the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) that it is our intention to withdraw this 
amendment, but we want to bring this issue up and discuss it properly.
  Mr. Chairman, included in the bill is language that would withhold 
$100 million in regular dues to the United Nations until the United 
Nations certifies a no-growth budget. This is of great concern to us on 
this side, because we believe that this would have a significant and 
devastating impact on ongoing negotiations.
  What happened is that last year we did something great in this bill, 
we were able to pay our arrears, but payment was based also on our 
claim that our assessment should be lower, that the dues that were 
assessed should be lower. Those negotiations are going on right now.
  In our opinion, to put this language in the bill would just send a 
very bad message, not only to those folks at the U.N. and our 
government to have to negotiate this issue, but also to other countries 
who we are trying to negotiate with.
  On one hand, we are telling them that it is our intent to pay our 
dues, at the same time we are telling them we think we are paying too 
much and we should not carry such a load. While that is going on, we 
then send a message that we will withhold amounts which, one, as I 
said, would just send a very bad message. It would make us look like we 
are negotiating in bad faith, and at the same time begin to put us 
again in arrears, something we are working hard and in a bipartisan 
fashion of last year, to try to do away with.
  While it is our intent to withdraw this amendment, I would just hope 
that in the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), 
if he wishes to make some, he would begin to send us the message that 
this is not the way we want to go, and that we have to continue to send 
a positive message to the U.N.
  Lastly, we in this Chamber take great credit for all the activities 
that this country undertakes throughout the world, and I think that 
more and more every day we have to understand that we do not take those 
activities alone. In the last few years and in the last decade, we have 
been taking them very closely and in conjunction with the U.N. as part 
of members of the U.N., and we should not continue to on one hand work 
closely with the U.N. to deal with issues throughout the world that are 
of great importance to our national security and to peace and 
prosperity throughout the world and at the same time continue to bash 
the U.N.
  I think that what we are seeing in this language is in fact U.N. 
bashing, and I will wait for some comments from the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), if he has any, and then I withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The provision that the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano) proposes to strike has been a critical part 
of what we have been able to achieve thus far in bringing fiscal 
discipline and responsibility back to the United Nations.
  It is part of the overall approach the Congress has taken toward the 
U.N. since 1997, an approach that the administration has in turn 
adopted; that is, to establish zero nominal growth budgets at the 
United Nations and other international organizations. Then once those 
budgets have been adopted at the U.N., to insist on a discipline to 
live within the budget that they have adopted.

[[Page 12320]]

  Mr. Chairman, consider what this provision really does. Does it 
underfund the anticipated U.S. share of the U.N. regular budget? The 
answer is no. The bill contains the full $300 million for our U.N. 
assessment.
  Does the provision require that the U.S. reopen budget issues that 
the U.N. already has agreed upon? The answer is no. It accepts the 
budget that the U.N. adopted in December, even though that budget 
exceeded zero nominal growth, which is what I would have preferred.
  The provision that the amendment proposes to strike conditions only 
one-third of our dues on a simple certification by the State 
Department. They must certify to the Congress that the U.N. is living 
within the biennial budget that the U.N. members themselves adopted in 
December. In other words, any increase in the U.N. budget from this 
point forward should be accompanied by an equal offset in their 
spending, much the same as we are required to do here in the Congress.
  It is the same provision we carried in 1997, Mr. Chairman; the same 
one we carried in 1998; the same one we carried in 1999. It is a well-
known U.S. policy and should not come as a surprise to anybody. In 
previous years, the State Department made these certifications and the 
U.S. paid its dues in full. No arrears were created as a result of this 
provision. Unless people at the U.N. are already planning to bust the 
current U.N. budget, which they agreed to only a few short months ago, 
the Department should have no problem making the certifications and 
paying the calendar year 2000 assessment in full.
  This exact, same amendment was defeated convincingly in the committee 
18-34, 2 weeks ago. I urge that it be rejected again today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey 
amendment which will allow the United States to pay all the annual dues 
we owe to the United Nations this year.
  Mr. Chairman, it was just last year that this Congress finally met 
our international obligations and paid our back dues to the U.N. We 
also required reforms at the U.N. which are now being implemented.
  Congress just solved this problem and now, with this bill, we will go 
back into debt again.
  The United Nations is a beacon of hope for the world. It promotes 
world peace and is a leader in the fight against hunger and poverty.
  The Obey amendment will allow all of our 2000 U.N. dues to be paid in 
the year 2000. Without the Obey amendment, $100 million of the dues we 
owe will be late.
  Mr. Chairman, great nations pay their bills on time. I would urge all 
Members to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $498,100,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for 
     any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission 
     unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the new or 
     expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or 
     in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable): (1) 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate 
     committees of the Congress are notified of the estimated cost 
     and length of the mission, the vital national interest that 
     will be served, and the planned exit strategy; and (2) a 
     reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 605 of this Act is 
     submitted, and the procedures therein followed, setting forth 
     the source of funds that will be used to pay for the cost of 
     the new or expanded mission: Provided further, That funds 
     shall be available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a 
     certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate 
     committees of the Congress that American manufacturers and 
     suppliers are being given opportunities to provide equipment, 
     services, and material for United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities equal to those being given to foreign 
     manufacturers and suppliers: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available under this heading are available to 
     pay the United States share of the cost of court monitoring 
     that is part of any United Nations peacekeeping mission.


          Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

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

       Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
       In title IV, in the item relating to ``contributions for 
     international peacekeeping activities'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $240,566,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Obey), the ranking member and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the full committee for allowing me 
the opportunity to offer this amendment.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, under the ruling, we are 
entitled to 30 minutes on this side and the other side will have 30 
minutes as well. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. No. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Illinois is entitled to 5 minutes and a Member in 
opposition has 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me just get some 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) offering 
his own amendment?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am offering the Dixon 
amendment, it is the Dixon-Jackson-Crowley amendment, as his designee, 
Mr. Chairman. I believe it is Amendment No. 60, Mr. Chairman.


          Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection amendment 62 is withdrawn and the 
Clerk will designate the Dixon amendment for which the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is the designee.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 60 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois as 
     designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon):
       In title IV, in the item relating to ``contributions for 
     international peacekeeping activities'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $240,566,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed 
each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, just to be sure that a point of order is 
reserved on this amendment as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a 
point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) for bringing the amendment that 
has been offered to the committee's attention. The CJS appropriations 
bill reduces the administration's contributions to international 
peacekeeping activities request of $739 million by $241 million, almost 
one-third.
  The committee report is not amendable on the floor, the report does 
did not include funding for following peacekeeping missions in Africa: 
MINURSO in Western Sahara; UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eritrea 
populations; and phase 2 of the MONUC in the Congo.
  The report languages for this bill singles out peacekeeping missions 
in Africa by failing to provide funding for these missions, unless it 
is reprogrammed for other missions. In this bill, the committee has 
underfunded the contributions to international peacekeeping activities 
and has directed the State Department, and I

[[Page 12321]]

quote ``to take no action to extend existing missions or create new 
missions for which funding is not available.''
  This amounts to a direction to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions. The 
requests by the President of $739 million would provide 25 percent, 
that is the U.S. portion agreed to last year, in the Helms-Biden 
compromise of the total estimated costs of the 15 current U.N. 
peacekeeping missions.
  The amount approved by the committee for fiscal year 2001, $498 
million, is frozen at the level appropriated for fiscal year 2000. Our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), 
argues that the administration and the U.N. must live within the 
appropriation and approve no new missions; however, this ignores the 
realities of international conflict, of wars and conflicts that are 
unpredictable and that can erupt at any given time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it quite interesting that of all of the U.N. 
missions, the report language, which I already indicated is unamendable 
on the floor, specifically singles out all of the peacekeeping missions 
in Africa. It does not deal with the U.N. force in Cyprus, U.N. 
operation in Georgia, the U.N. mission in Tazikstan, the war crimes 
tribunal in Yugoslavia, while funding the war crimes tribunal in 
Rwanda, U.N. transitional administration in East Timor, U.N. mission in 
Kosovo, but specifically looks at peacekeeping missions in Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, with the balance of our time, I hope that during the 
course of this hour, we have a very informed debate to find out what is 
behind why African life in this report and in this bill is being 
treated differently than life of Europeans. We will discuss that at 
great length.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do claim such time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished 
ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the 21st century in terms of American lives 
lost was the bloodiest in our history and the meanest, except for the 
19th, in which we conducted an American Civil War which put brother 
against brother and from which we are still suffering some of the 
consequences. Now, we are turning into a different century, and it is 
to be hoped that America's role in the world is changing somewhat. At 
this point, there is no other power in the world that even comes close.
  We have the military might to cover any region, to reach any region, 
to sail any sea, to find and hit virtually any target, if we want; but 
we also have another role, and that role has been to try to serve not 
so much as a fighter, but as a separator of parties in many regional 
fights, in a peacekeeping role.
  Now, that is going to be a very messy situation. It is not always 
going to work, and there will be Americans who die. But if we do it 
right, there will be far less for America to pay in human terms than we 
have seen in each of the previous two centuries; that is what we try to 
do through the peacekeeping operations in the United Nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not happen to be thrilled with all of those 
peacekeeping operations, but I would point out one thing. We created 
the United Nations and we created the rules. Under those rules, when 
the United Nations votes for a peacekeeping operation in the security 
council, that requires a mandatory contribution from this country to 
fulfill our share of the financial burden.
  We are very lucky in comparison to a number of other countries in the 
world, because we more often than not do not supply the troops. We 
supply a little cash, and we supply a lot of advice, but we supply a 
very tiny percentage of the troops. We ought to be grateful for that.
  Now, what this bill asks us to do is to support the idea that a 
subcommittee of this House somehow has the right to interpose its 
judgment and to decide for itself just what peacekeeping operations the 
United Nations will support and which ones they will not.

                              {time}  1700

  Well, that is not the way it is supposed to work. I did not realize 
that the gentleman from Kentucky had been confirmed as our ambassador 
to the United Nations and also as our Secretary of State and Secretary 
of Defense at the same time. I kind of missed that. I did not see those 
headlines.
  So what we have here in this bill is an attempt to say to the 
President of the United States and to the U.N. Security Council, 
``Sorry, but regardless of the conditions in the world, you are limited 
to a specific dollar amount for peacekeeping operations. And the world 
can change overnight, but sorry, our green eye shade is more important 
than world considerations.'' I do not think that makes any sense, not 
if we are trying to preserve American power and influence; not if we 
are trying to prevent the loss of American lives; and not if we are 
trying to prevent the loss of other lives and to bring stability into 
the world.
  So what this amendment simply tries to do is to eliminate the 
pretentious action on the part of this subcommittee which says that 
this subcommittee somehow has the right, on mandatory contributions to 
the United Nations, to abrogate to itself the decision as to which 
peacekeeping operations will be undertaken. I believe that that is an 
ill-advised decision. I believe, as the Washington Post describes, that 
that is ``playing'' at foreign policy, and I think it is extremely 
dangerous.
  I congratulate the gentleman for offering his amendment, because in 
the end, we have no choice but to provide these funds under the rules 
which we ourselves wrote almost 50 years ago.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Kentucky 
reserves his time and his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, asked some questions that I think bear 
repeating, and that is whether or not we remove from the appropriate 
officials in the administration, the appointed United Nations 
ambassador, the Secretary of State, the vital responsibilities of 
ensuring that we adhere to our word of being a Nation of peace and not 
of war.
  Just a few days ago, Mr. Chairman, I sat in the United Nations 
Security Council meeting watching the very effective work of our 
ambassador, arguing about ensuring that peacekeeping in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo was reinforced by the U.N. Security Council, by 
ensuring that Uganda would restrain from any actions to the contrary. 
Generally the discussion of the U.N. Security Council of the U.N. was 
regarding peace. It was that debate that made me have a clearer 
understanding of the vital necessity of ensuring that the United States 
does not pull away from peacekeeping and continues to fund our 
collaborative peacekeeping efforts with the U.N.
  Just a few weeks ago, several refugees in Houston went home to 
Kosovo. I heard the negative comments when we were in the midst of a 
Kosovo conflict, that we should not be involved. Yet today, however 
uneven as it is, there is peace in Kosovo.
  Now, this legislative initiative, this appropriations bill does not 
provide the funding that we need to ensure that on the continent of 
Africa, we can likewise have peace. There is a commitment by the United 
Nations Security Council; there is a commitment by other African 
nations to be able to provide support in areas like Sierra Leone, in 
areas like Ethiopia and Eritrea, where peace is imminent. How can we 
instruct our administration not to engage in efforts to secure such 
peace?

[[Page 12322]]

  How can we do that when we have 37,000 U.S. troops as peacekeepers in 
South Korea? How can we do that when we have 5,500 troops in Bosnia and 
nearby countries participating in or contributing to the stabilization 
force? How can we discriminate against the peacekeeping efforts on the 
continent of Africa when, in Sierra Leone, arms of farmers and children 
are being hatcheted off?
  Mr. Chairman, I think we do ourselves a disservice and we are not 
befitting of the name ``America'' if we say that we cannot help secure 
peace in the world.
  I support this amendment. I congratulate the gentleman. We must be 
supporters of peace. Let us vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
reserves his time and his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee as to whether or not he was 
going to use any of his time, because I do have a number of speakers; 
and if he is not going to use it, I would certainly be willing to 
accept of it if he is willing to offer.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will be the only speaker, 
and my intent is that the gentleman would use as much time as he 
desires, and then I would conclude with whatever remarks I have.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me quickly make two points: first of all, a personal point and 
then an observation in general.
  Personally, anyone who has followed me during these 10 years that I 
have been in Congress knows that I am very outspoken on my country 
being involved in military activities throughout the world. On many 
occasions, when we have been involved in the last 10 years, I have 
spoken against it because I have questioned what we were doing in 
certain places.
  Secondly, I, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and so many 
of us do, recognize that the world has changed in such a way where we 
are truly the last strong standing superpower. So with that comes a 
responsibility, in my opinion; and the responsibility is especially 
what we have been doing the last few years throughout the world, and 
that is joining other countries in peacekeeping operations.
  I can see no better way to use our military forces than in attempting 
to keep the peace rather than engaging in war. Unfortunately, the whole 
world has not changed the way some places have changed, and so we have 
areas of the world where there are serious problems still going on, and 
we can either stand by and allow some of these things to happen, or we 
can take a role.
  Well, I cannot double-talk. I did not want us to take certain roles 
of going in and joining one side and fighting the other. But what we 
are doing now I think is honorable, and it is humane and it is proper, 
when we go in as part of the U.N. to participate with other countries 
in keeping the peace.
  So at this point, I think it is totally improper for us in this 
subcommittee, in this Congress, to tell our administration to tell our 
leaders, and I will take the same position should there be new 
leadership in the future at the White House, that we should not take 
the role of saying, we cannot participate, and in keeping the peace.
  What this bill does, and what this whole message is is that we do not 
care, we do not care what happens throughout the world, and we do not 
care what role we play.
  Let me just close by repeating again. I am not one of those who 
supports our military actions, but I do support our peacekeeping 
actions.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to be very, very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment restores 
the President's request of $240 million to international peacekeeping 
activities. What this report, the bill that the Congress of the United 
States will be voting on in a moment specifically targets and 
eliminates peacekeeping in Africa. So it is okay to do peacekeeping in 
Europe, it is okay to do peacekeeping in other parts of the world, but 
we do not want you in Western Sahara, Sierra Leone, the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, we do not want you anywhere else unless we will 
resubject this money to reprogramming and therefore, redefine all 
peacekeeping missions.
  As of June 2000, only 826 Americans, that is 791 civilian police and 
35 observers are serving in U.N. peacekeeping operations. That accounts 
for only 2.3 percent of the 3,535,546 U.N. peacekeepers worldwide. 
There are currently no American military troops serving in U.N. 
peacekeeping operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support for the Jackson amendment. I only wish we 
had more opportunities to discuss America's constructive involvement in 
global affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is not intervention; peacekeeping is the 
promotion of peace and security. It is the international cooperation 
required for a war-torn region to transition from militarization to 
democracy. In many areas of the globe, international peacekeeping 
missions are the only lines of defense against ethnic cleansing. We 
need look no further than Kosovo or East Timor to know that our 
participation saves lives.
  The amendment before us would add $241 million to our peacekeeping 
contributions. This modest increase should not be controversial, given 
the state of the conflict in this world. Frankly, the $498 million line 
item for peacekeeping in this bill falls well short of our 
international commitments. I think we are ignoring fundamental needs 
globally, but particularly in Africa. The language of the report is 
particularly insensitive to African needs.
  I want to just quote several pieces here over a page, the first line 
of each of several paragraphs. The committee recommendation does not 
include amounts requested for certain peacekeeping missions, including 
MINURSO in Western Sahara, UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, MONUC in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo. And then the committee is particularly 
concerned about the future of the UNAMSIL mission in Sierra Leone. The 
recommendation does not include requested funding for the MONUC 
mission. And then, the recommendation again does not include funding 
for the MINURSO mission. Then, the recommendation does not include 
requested funding for the Angola Monitoring mission. Again, the 
committee recommendation does not include funding requested for a new 
mission for Ethiopia and Eritrea.
  Of all of our peacekeeping efforts around the globe, all in Africa 
are underfunded; and virtually nowhere else is that measure being used.
  The multinational war in Congo and several recent severe outbreaks of 
ethnic cleansing and ethnic violence have created enormous humanitarian 
needs throughout Africa, but especially in Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, 
Western Sahara, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Eritrea. America's peacekeeping 
program is a work in progress. We should not halt that progress; we 
should keep the U.S. a responsible and engaged actor in the 
international community by supporting the Jackson-Dixon amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson 
amendment. I have visited Sierra Leone in December of this year, along 
with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). We went into camps where we 
saw many people with their arms cut off.

[[Page 12323]]

  Before I talk about that, let me just mention a little bit about 
Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone was founded by William Wilberforce. He was a 
strong Christian believer in the British Parliament, and John Newton, 
who wrote the words to Amazing Grace that all of us have sung, was a 
slave trader in Sierra Leone and was picked off up the island, and 
after that, had a religious conversion and became a man of great faith 
with the whole goal of abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain. On 
the death bed of William Wilberforce, they abolished the slave trade.
  This young girl had her arm cut off by the rebels, and if there is 
not some peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone and other countries, 
the rebels will continue to cuff off arms. They go into a village, and 
they ask them to draw out a piece of paper; and it may say right arm or 
left arm, and then they say, do you want a short sleeve or a long 
sleeve? If you say you want a short sleeve, they cut your arm off 
between your elbow and your shoulder. If you want a long sleeve, they 
cut it off between the wrist and the elbow.
  We saw another young lady who was pregnant, 13 years old, with both 
of her arms cut off. In Sierra Leone, they take young women into the 
bush with the rebels for sex slaves, and when we talked to the Italian 
doctors in the City of Freetown, they said every young lady who came in 
was infected with AIDS.

                              {time}  1715

  There were thousands of people killed in Sierra Leone in the last 
several years. The life expectancy in Sierra Leone is 25.6 years. It is 
the lowest, in Sierra Leone, of any country in the world.
  In the Congo, that this amendment would also help, 1.7 million people 
have been killed in the last 22 months, 1.7 million people, and 35 
percent are under the ages of 5. Without the Jackson amendment, the 
guerillas, the Sankohs and the Charles Taylors and all those other 
people can continue this action whereby women are taken away as sex 
slaves and children are losing their arms and moms and dads live in 
terror.
  For that reason, and for those who remember the legacy of William 
Wilburforce who became a believer, standing in the House of parliament 
to abolish the slave trade, and when we think of the words of John 
Newton in Amazing Grace, think of the Jackson amendment that will allow 
the peacekeepers to come and keep peace.
  I do not want American soldiers to go to Sierra Leone or to the 
Congo, but when the peacekeepers are willing to come from the U.N. to 
keep peace so this little girl does not lose her other arm, then I 
think it is a worthwhile version.
  So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is a good 
amendment. This will help bring some sort of peace, and make it whereby 
moms and dads can raise their kids in some sort of semblance of peace, 
not only in Sierra Leone but in the Congo and other places.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also add that I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am honored and privileged to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Serrano-Jackson-Dixon-
Crowley amendment to increase peacekeeping by $241 million.
  United Nations peacekeepers perform the critical functions that help 
maintain peace and stability. Many U.N. peacekeeping missions have 
brought about successful results in El Salvador, in the Middle East, 
and in Mozambique.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am especially concerned 
about the prohibition on new peacekeeping missions in Africa. This 
prohibition really does send a message that Africa does not matter, and 
that promoting peace in Africa is of no concern to this Congress.
  Many of us here strongly disagree. Africa does matter because it is a 
continent of vast resources, enormous diversity, and millions of people 
whom the world has neglected and exploited. Years of colonization have 
balkanized the continent of Africa. The least we can do is to support a 
strong United Nations peacekeeping mission on the continent of Africa.
  In February, the President declared AIDS in Africa to be a threat to 
national security. It is our moral obligation to fight the war on HIV 
and AIDS. To do that, however, Africa must have peace, security, and 
stability.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I stand here to 
really challenge all of us in the United States to be a leader, not 
just in Europe, not just an Asia, but also in Africa.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 4\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment to 
the Commerce-State-Justice bill, H.R. 4690. Let me commend the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for putting in this commonsense 
amendment. It is simply nothing more than that. It is common sense.
  Why is it common sense? It is common sense because, as we have heard 
a previous speaker say in a very eloquent appeal, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), that the United States is the number one nation in 
the world. Our country is experiencing all-time heights in the stock 
market, the quality of life, unemployment, profits.
  Here we have a nation that is number one in the world, a nation that 
spends this year $310 billion on defense, many on these weapons that 
make war. These weapons are to supposedly defend ourselves against the 
enemy. We really have no enemy that we can see. The USSR is gone. We 
have potentials all around, but there is no threat as there was in 
World War II and as there was in World War I, or as there were during 
the Cold War.
  As we spend $330 billion making weapons of war, B-2 bombers, MX 
missiles, and Sea Wolf submarines, we say that we cannot afford $2.7 
billion to preserve the peace; not to make the war, but to preserve the 
peace.
  Can it be that these are people whose skin is black? Can it be 
because these are people who struggle daily simply to eke out a living? 
They do not buy our cars, they do not buy our equipment, they do not 
buy our televisions, they do not buy our computers. So does that mean 
that these people do not count? They are human beings, like everyone 
else. When their fingers are cut, the little children, the blood is 
red. When their bellies hurt, their eyes show the pain.
  Why can we then say as a nation, the home of the free, the land of 
the brave, that we cannot put $2.7 billion in to preserve the peace? 
This is a disgrace. It is a shame. I almost feel that it is an 
embarrassment being a Member of this House, where we talk about taking 
money out that will preserve the peace.
  We are not talking about sending U.S. troops there to be in harm's 
way. We do not do that anymore. The French did it in the Congo when 
they went in and protected several million people. The British just 
went into Sierra Leone. But we do not now do that, and we are not 
asking us to do that, since we do not do that anymore.
  But we cannot give $2.7 billion so Ethiopia and Eritrea can stop the 
conflict? They want to do it, they are ready. They simply want some 
observers in to make sure that things are even. There is the Congo, 
with seven nations battling and saying, we are willing to step back if 
you send the U.N. in. There is the situation in Sierra Leone. They are 
ready to say, at least we need a semblance of peace and justice. Let 
the U.N. come in and all sides will agree.
  And we are saying that we do not want to send $2.7 billion of United 
States taxpayers' money to this region? Why? I am still trying to find 
out the reason why. Is it because their skin is black? Is it because 
they are poor? Is it because they have been exploited by

[[Page 12324]]

the Cold War? No blood was shed during the Cold War except in Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, we have supported Mobutu, a despot, a tyrant, for 30 
years, who stole from and ravaged his country, but the U.S. supported 
him. That is one of the problems in the Congo today, because of the 
legacy of Mobutu. We cannot now send $2.7 billion to the United Nations 
to try to undo what we have done? It is wrong. I would urge that we 
pass the Jackson amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the various 
speakers on our side of the aisle just how complicated this bill is for 
sub-Saharan Africa.
  Not long ago, this Congress voted on a new relationship with sub-
Saharan Africa, the Crane-Rangel bill, 309 yeas, 110 nays, to establish 
a new premise for relating to sub-Saharan Africa. Trade, not aid, was 
the mantra that was offered by Democrats and Republicans in this 
Congress to establish a new relationship with sub-Saharan Africa.
  Now the rubber meets the road in 
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill where, when it comes to 
providing not only trade but providing sustainable development and 
peace in a region that wants to work its way out of its economic 
condition and provide economic hope for its people, the United States 
government, through this report, has determined that funding 
peacekeeping missions in sub-Saharan Africa is not worth our time or 
worth our money.
  It does not say that about Kosovo. It does not say that about U.N. 
missions in other parts of the world. It specifically singles out in 
this bill Africa for no peacekeeping resources.
  At the conclusion of World War I, President Wilson proposed a League 
of Nations to keep World War I from ever happening again. Because it 
did not pass through the political process in our country and around 
the world, quickly we found ourselves involved in World War II, which 
led, at the conclusion of World War II, to the idea of a United 
Nations.
  Why a United Nations? The United Nations, with all of its problems, 
was brought into existence as an early warning system for Hitler. It 
was the early warning system in the latter half of the 20th century to 
determine if another fascist, another tyrant, another totalitarian 
regime began moving, not only on U.S. interests but on world interests.
  That is why peacekeepers came into existence, as an early warning 
system to provide people in the world an opportunity to rally behind an 
international governing body that could indeed determine that 
undemocratic practices were taking place somewhere in the world.
  So what does this bill do? It challenges that very basic premise. It 
says that $100 million of this particular bill, unless the U.N. 
balances its budget like we are balancing our budget, should not go 
looking for despots or tyrants. It says that peacekeeping should not be 
done in Africa, do it everywhere else in the world.
  It would be one thing if the chairman and the distinguished committee 
could hide behind, could hide behind this amendment, but the reality is 
that it cuts Africa.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
proposition. I understand the administration has increased somewhat the 
monies for international peacekeeping, but the monies are critically 
needed, and although I did not have the opportunity, unfortunately, 
because I was late getting to the floor, to hear all of the comments of 
my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Illinois, I think we all 
agree that the United States' interests, our strategic interests, are 
served by fully participating in the U.N. peacekeeping process.
  It is my understanding that there is not an American soldier right 
now involved in U.N. peacekeeping efforts outside of Kosovo, which is 
an OSCE, essentially, with U.N. participation. The fact of the matter, 
though, is I think we are foolish if we do not fund our fair share. One 
could argue about fair share, but in my view, we are certainly at this 
level, at this level, paying a share that is less than some other 
countries on a per capita basis.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) 
has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 1 additional minute is granted to 
each side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think we should pay our fair share.
  My father was born in Copenhagen. I visited Bosnia some years ago. 
There were 985 Danish troops in Bosnia. That was more troops per capita 
than any other Nation on Earth. Obviously, they were not the largest 
contingent that was there, but in terms of the commitment they were 
making it was, relatively speaking, the largest.
  The United States continues, obviously, to make the most significant 
contribution in many areas of the U.N., relatively speaking, not only 
to our wealth and our capabilities but also relative to the 
consequences that will occur if the U.N. peacekeeping efforts are not 
successful.
  In other words, the investment we are making in keeping the peace 
frankly is not only saving us money, it is also saving us risk at 
putting additional assets deployed in those areas. So I would urge my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment and increase to the President's 
level.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time, and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and the 
gentlemen from New York, Mr. Crowley and Mr. Serrano, for bringing this 
very important amendment to the people.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to dispel some misunderstandings about 
peacekeeping and what we fund in this bill. For example, we did not 
fund in this bill the NATO mission in Kosovo. We fund the peacekeeping 
portion of the effort in Kosovo, after the peace was won.
  We did not fund the war-stopping measures in East Timor. Australia 
did that. They established peace, and then we fund the peacekeeping 
U.N. contributions.
  This bill does not fund the effort to establish order in Haiti. We 
approved the funding for the peacekeeping in Haiti after the peace was 
established.
  And the same will be true of Sierra Leone, Congo, Ethiopia, anywhere 
else in the world that the U.N. is the appropriate vehicle to keep a 
peace. The U.N. cannot make peace. The U.N. can keep, hopefully, a 
peace. That is where we are now.
  Mr. Chairman, let me correct another misconception, that we do not 
provide adequate resources for U.N. peacekeeping. This bill contains 
$500 million for our share of U.N. peacekeeping. And I would point out, 
our share, the U.S. share, up until recently, was 30 percent and the 
rest of the world paid the balance. But we paid by far the biggest 
share and still do. Our share now is 25 percent, not only of 
peacekeeping but of the regular U.N. dues.
  But we provide $500 million in this bill for peacekeeping operations 
of the United Nations. We are pulling our fair share. Let no one 
dispute that. If there is disagreement about the appropriate numbers of 
dollars in the U.N. peacekeeping missions, go talk to our friends in 
England and Japan and Greece and the rest of the world,

[[Page 12325]]

China, about paying a better share of the costs of U.N. peacekeeping. 
Do not tell me that the United States is not a big-time partner in 
peacekeeping around the world. We pay a fourth of the costs, not 
counting what we contribute militarily, which does not count in this 
budget, for transporting troops all over the world in our planes, our 
fuel, our ships, our troops, in transporting people all around the 
world for peacekeeping missions.
  Now, in the year 2000, this current year, we gave the U.N. a 120 
percent increase in the number of peacekeeping dollars that we 
contributed. It went from $231 million in fiscal 1999, we increased 
that to $498 million in this current year. Now, what the administration 
is requesting is an increase of that figure by $241 million. We do not 
provide that additional increase because these missions are not quite 
ready yet.
  Earlier on, we thought Sierra Leone was ready. There was a peace 
agreement. The U.N. voted for a peacekeeping mission to keep the peace 
in Sierra Leone. We approved the reprogramming monies and we sent $42 
million to the U.N. for the peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone, so 
we have approved that. Now they want more for Sierra Leone. But by 
everyone's account, Sierra Leone has now descended back into warfare 
for which the United Nations is not equipped. We all know that. 
Secretary General Annan says that.
  Now, there is a misconception about how peacekeeping monies are spent 
and how they are doled out. Every year, the Congress approves a sum of 
money for U.N. peacekeeping assessments. That money stays in the 
peacekeeping account. When our Ambassador to the U.N. is preparing to 
vote for another peacekeeping mission, they are required by law to 
notify the Congress, this subcommittee, and the Congress in general, of 
their intent to vote for another peacekeeping mission at the U.N. 
Security Council, along with a reprogramming request of us to take from 
the $500 million account and apply so much to that peacekeeping 
mission.
  They did so with Sierra Leone back in February and, pronto, the 
Congress approved. We reprogrammed $42 million from the general account 
for peacekeeping for that particular mission. And as we all know since 
that time, Sankoh and the rebels have gone back on the attack and 
Sierra Leone is no longer working under a peace agreement for which the 
U.N. could keep the peace. It has descended back into warfare and we 
are withholding the reprogramming of further Sierra Leone peacekeeping 
missions until order can be restored.
  Now, how does that take place? How can order be restored in Sierra 
Leone so that the U.N. can keep a peace? The same way we did in Kosovo. 
In Kosovo, the regional power went in with military force, led by NATO, 
the U.S. being a big portion, of course, and restored a peace. Now we 
are funding a peacekeeping mission through the U.N. in Kosovo.
  What happened in East Timor? We relied upon Australia, the regional 
power, to go in militarily. Not with U.N. peacekeeping dollars, but 
other money. Military aid to establish the peace in East Timor. Now we 
have sent U.N. peacekeepers to East Timor because there is a peace to 
be kept.
  It happened that way in Haiti. The U.S. was the regional power. It 
can happen that way in Sierra Leone. How? By equipping militarily 
Nigeria, the regional power, with U.S. dollars. It is not peacekeeping 
monies. It would come out of the Defense Department or from foreign 
military assistance in the foreign aid bill, not this one, to directly 
militarily assist Nigeria to go into Sierra Leone and establish a peace 
which can be kept by the U.N.
  Mr. Chairman, we are discussing that with the administration. 
Ambassador Holbrooke is working night and day for that very objective. 
We are conferring with him almost daily in that respect. Do not expect 
the U.N. peacekeeping mission to be able to go in and fight a war. They 
cannot do that. We learned that in Somalia. We have learned it all 
around the world. Let us not relearn a lesson that has cost American 
lives as in Somalia and other nations, military personnel, peacekeeping 
personnel, as we have learned, unfortunately, only recently.
  Last November, Secretary General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying,

       Peacekeeping and warfighting are distinct activities which 
     should not be mixed. Peacekeepers must never again be 
     deployed into an environment in which there is no cease-fire 
     or peace agreement.

  I agree with that entirely. But the U.N. apparently is not following 
its own advice. Right now the largest U.N. peacekeeping mission in the 
world is in Sierra Leone, a country where there is now open warfare. 
U.N. peacekeepers kidnapped, some 500 of them, by Sankoh and the 
rebels. The U.N. has demonstrated absolutely no capability to restore 
and enforce peace there. And we did not expect them, frankly, when they 
were sent there earlier on, to get into an open warfare situation. 
Nineteen peacekeepers are still captive. Another 230 surrounded and 
detained. They are not trained for warfare. We all know that.
  The British came in and prevented a total collapse by the U.N., but 
now the British are withdrawing and the U.N. is likely to be challenged 
again.
  The U.N. commander in Sierra Leone recently tried to explain why his 
troops surrendered without a fight and were taken hostage last month. 
He said they were taken hostage because they were, quote, ``using the 
weapon we know best: Negotiation. We did not want to use force. We did 
not come here for war.'' End of quote. The commander of the U.N. in 
Sierra Leone.
  If the task at hand is negotiation, peacekeeping, obviously the U.N. 
should take the lead. When the task at hand is to fight a war, the U.N. 
is the wrong tool for the job. Do not expect them to be able to fight a 
war. They are not equipped for that. They are not trained for that.
  So what is the U.N.'s response so far to renewed fighting in Sierra 
Leone? More personnel. More potential hostages or worse, casualties. 
More chaos and violence for the citizens of Sierra Leone. The U.N. 
expanded the force to 11,000, then to 13,000, soon to 16,500, yet that 
force is not equipped. It still has poor logistics and poor 
communication. Even reports of direct insubordination within the 
command. They ran when the rebels attacked and then surrendered. I 
believe it is a recipe for disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, we have urged the administration to pursue other policy 
options to bring peace first to Sierra Leone, if that is indeed 
possible. And the only way to do that, unless it is direct U.S. 
military personnel, is to equip and arm Nigeria and allow them to 
establish a peace to be kept in Sierra Leone.
  If my colleagues agree with the U.N.'s undisciplined, uncontrolled 
approach to peacekeeping, then they should support the gentleman's 
amendment and the administration's funding request, a second 
consecutive annual increase of over $200 million. This approach led to 
disaster in the past and it will again.
  The bill in front of us today holds U.N. peacekeeping at the elevated 
level that we gave them in the year 2000, a 120 percent increase over 
fiscal 1999. It will help the administration to argue against the 
wishful thinking of those at the U.N. who believe that placing U.N. 
personnel into combat zones will magically bring peace. As we so 
tragically now know, that does not take place.
  We have to make difficult choices in this bill to live within the 
allocation we were handed. We have not targeted peacekeeping money for 
reduction. We have simply held it at the current elevated level of last 
year the current year, which we have had to do in so many other 
accounts in this bill. We do not prohibit peacekeeping missions 
anywhere in the world. That is just not in this bill.
  No offset is proposed in the gentleman's amendment. This is the exact 
same amendment that we rejected in the full committee 2 weeks ago, and 
were it not to be the subject of a point of order, I am confident that 
that would be the case in this body.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this in conclusion. I hope that the 
administration

[[Page 12326]]

will equip the Nigerians with whatever military capabilities are needed 
to establish a peace in Sierra Leone. In that case, monies will be 
approved for a peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone by the U.N., as it 
should be. The same, frankly, will be true in the Congo when there is a 
peace to be kept, as there is not today. The same will be true in 
Ethiopia/Eritrea. In fact, since the bill was marked up, there has now 
come about a peace agreement in Ethiopia and I am sure we will receive 
soon a request for peacekeeping reprogramming funds from the general 
account to a peacekeeping mission in Ethiopia to keep the peace 
established by that accord. There is a peace apparently to be kept in 
Ethiopia and it will be funded in due course of time.
  But I plead with my colleagues, understand the limitations that the 
U.N. has in bringing about peace. They can negotiate, they can keep a 
peace once it is established, they just do not have the capability to 
wage war.

                              {time}  1745

  They are not a war-fighting organization. They are a peacekeeping 
organization. We fund peacekeeping in this bill. They fund war-fighting 
in other bills.
  So I would hope that my colleagues will understand the position that 
this chairman and this subcommittee take. We support peacekeeping when 
there is a peace to be kept. We understand the U.N. cannot fight wars. 
Only a militarily capable entity, such as NATO or such as a regional 
military power, like Australia, Britain, the U.S., others, Nigeria in 
Sierra Leone's case, establish a peace to be kept.
  I say to my colleagues that once that peace is established, and there 
is a peace to be kept and the United Nations asks the U.S. to share in 
the cost of the peacekeeping mission to the tune of 25 percent, this 
subcommittee will reprogram funds from this account to fund that 
peacekeeping mission, wherever it is, Sierra Leone, the Congo, 
Ethiopia, Haiti, East Timor, Western Sahara, and others. There are many 
of them going on at this moment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Let me say in regard to a few of the figures the gentleman raised, 
the gentleman talked about the fact that the U.S. had 30 percent of 
peacekeeping and now it has reduced this appropriations down to 25 
percent and there is a move to even reduce it further. The way the U.N. 
assesses dues is based on GDP. The U.S. has 28 percent of the world's 
wealth. And as we continue to reduce our contributions to the United 
Nations, we are actually paying less.
  As we reduce our contributions down from 25 to 22, and we want to go 
to 20, that means that the poorer countries in the world will have to 
pay a disproportionate share, as we pay less than our share. So we are 
not paying more; we are actually paying less than the world standards 
of how assessments are done.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
look at a table of the nations that contribute to U.N. peacekeeping, 
the gentleman will find that five nations pay better than 90 percent of 
the total peacekeeping costs. Most of the countries of the world, the 
countries the gentleman has mentioned, pay a fraction of 1 percent. 
China now pays, I think, less than 1 percent. Japan pays around 10 or 
11 percent. They are beginning to pull their fair share. Britain pays a 
good fair share. Germany needs to be increased, and others.
  The poorer nations of the world will not suffer if the rate of 
contributions of the other industrialized nations come up to where they 
are now, not the GDP they had in 1945 when the U.N. was formed.
  That is not the question in this debate, however, the U.N. 
contribution rate of the U.S. We will take that up in another setting, 
perhaps. The point I want to make to the gentleman in relation to the 
amendment that has been offered is that we will fund our share of 
peacekeeping costs of the U.N. where there is a peace to be kept. And 
in Sierra Leone I hope to God that a peace can be established there by 
Nigeria or some regional power for us to be able to keep. The same is 
true in the Congo, in Ethiopia and East Timor.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, on 
the question of Sierra Leone, I think there were 300 peacekeepers. Now, 
if there were 300 Nigerian troops at that point surrounded by several 
thousand RUF, I think the conclusion would probably be about the same. 
I think that it was not the fact that they were peacekeepers. I think 
that if the adequate number that was supposed to be in that country 
could be deployed there, I do believe that there would have been a very 
different outcome.
  Also, in Ethiopia and Eritrea, they are saying that they are ready to 
end all of their hostilities and they have signed a peace accord. But 
they have said that they want the U.N. peacekeepers in there now so 
they can all withdraw. They do not trust each other. If we do not send 
in the U.N. peacekeepers, there is no regional power in Ethiopia or 
Eritrea.
  Mr. ROGERS. Well, reclaiming my time, I have already said to the 
gentleman that we may yet approve a peacekeeping expenditure for 
Ethiopia. There has been an accord signed since we marked the bill up. 
That will be forthcoming. We could reprogram money from this account 
for a peacekeeping mission in Ethiopia. The same is true for Sierra 
Leone, when there is peace to be kept.
  But the peacekeepers of the U.N. sent to Sierra Leone are not 
equipped to fight. They are equipped to keep the peace. We should arm 
Nigeria to the point that Nigeria can go in and take care of Sankoh and 
the other rebels that are causing so much havoc in that poor country. 
But we have to have a military capable force, and Nigeria has it. The 
U.N. does not want it, nor do we want them to have a war-fighting 
capability.
  So Nigeria, I think, is the solution to the Sierra Leone lack of 
peace. And Nigeria cannot do that unless we equip the Nigerian military 
force with the power capable to make that happen.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, if I can ask the gentleman to continue to 
yield for just a few quick seconds more.
  Let us take the Congo. In the Congo I have spoken to heads of State 
just a day or two ago, the main belligerents, that is what they are 
called, the aggressors, they are waiting for the U.N. The reason there 
is a skirmish here and a skirmish there is because of the vacuum 
created by the lack of, as there are, retreating troops.
  So I would say to the gentleman that I think he is lumping together 
three or four places under one wand. I think that is a mistake, because 
they are all very different. And I do believe that we can have the 
peace without the conflict of war in some of these places, therefore 
even saving casualties from those regional powers.
  So I would urge the gentleman, as I yield back to him, if there could 
be a rethinking of this issue, we would appreciate it.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the 
gentleman's willingness to work with us on these critical issues.
  When the chairman mentioned the word reprogramming, as it is 
specifically laid out in the context of the report, is the chairman, 
one, talking about reprogramming of the appropriated amount of $500 
million? That is, possibly taking money from some other peacekeeping 
force. Or is the gentleman talking about an additional appropriation 
that is towards the President's request for additional peacekeeping 
missions?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I explained before, 
the way this rather unique account is operating, the way we operate it, 
we appropriate, or the Congress does, an annual sum of money for 
peacekeeping contributions to the U.N., in this case $500 million. 
During the year, the administration, when they propose another 
peacekeeping mission at the

[[Page 12327]]

U.N., they are required by law to notify the Congress 15 days in 
advance of that vote at the Security Council, a notification that they 
plan to vote for a new mission; and, two, a reprogramming request from 
this account, or some other peacekeeping mission that is not quite 
ready yet for monies to go into that particular new peacekeeping 
mission. That is the way that has been operating for a long time.
  Sometimes each peacekeeping mission has different spend-out rates. 
Some spend quicker than others. There is always money in that account 
to be changed from one to the other or drawn from the general account.
  What the bill proposes is $500 million, the same as the current year, 
for the peacekeeping account, which is a 120 percent increase over the 
figure we gave similarly in 1999. So we have kept them at the elevated 
120 percent increase over 1999 in this current bill. There should be 
sufficient monies for them to do the peacekeeping missions where the 
mission is ready for monies to be spent. It is not ready in Sierra 
Leone nor in the Congo. It probably will soon be in Ethiopia.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield for one final inquiry. The chairman is well aware that the 
Helms-Biden agreement dictated and requires the Congress to provide 25 
percent of the total cost of these operations. Is the chairman aware of 
any implications the cap that is placed on this bill would have on the 
existing operations, and its impact on an agreement that was worked out 
between Senator Helms and Senator Biden?
  Mr. ROGERS. I am not sure I understand the gentleman's point.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. My understanding was that this request is 
not coming from the administration purely out of the context of 
requirements dictated by a compromise worked out between Senator Helms 
and Senator Biden, and that is presently our obligation, as required by 
law, is to fulfill 25 percent of the total cost of these operations; 
and that any failure by us to pay will affect the U.N.'s ability to 
effectively carry out all of the missions.
  I was just wondering if the chairman was aware whether the cap the 
chairman has placed on the amount from the House mark might indeed have 
broader implications for that understanding.
  Mr. ROGERS. I do not see that it would.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in strong support of the 
Dixon, Jackson, Crowley, Jackson-Lee amendment to the CJS 
Appropriations Act to increase appropriations for international 
peacekeeping by $241 million.
  First, let me thank Representative Jackson for his strong leadership 
on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him on such a worthy 
effort. I would also like to thank Representative Dixon for his strong 
leadership on this issue. He led the fight in committee on behalf of 
peacekeeping and the United Nations and I thank him for his efforts. I 
would also like to thank Representative Barbara Lee, Representative 
Serrano, and Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee for their support.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are forced to debate, again, an issue that was 
settled under the Helms-Biden legislation--the issue of our 
international peacekeeping contributions.
  As many of you in this body know, the Helms-Biden legislation 
includes a provision in which the United States unilaterally reduced 
our peacekeeping contribution by 5 percent.
  As I said, this was a unilateral move. We have not gotten agreement 
from the U.N., or even our allies at the U.N. We simply did this on our 
own.
  This year, the administration has sent a budget up to Congress, 
adhering to the Helms-Biden law and determined that it will cost 
approximately $738 million to fund our share of international 
peacekeeping at the congressionally agreed upon level of 25 percent.
  But that is not what was done in this legislation. Instead, the CJS 
bill has cut the administration's request by one-third, and provided 
funding at a level of $498 million.
  Additionally, a number of restrictions have been placed on this 
funding prohibiting support for U.N. peacekeeping missions in Sierra 
Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tajikistan, Western Sahara, 
and in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
  This low funding level and the arbitrary restrictions are dangerous.
  Peacekeeping is an important foreign policy tool and vital to U.S. 
national security. To quote from the State Department's FY 2001 
presentation and justification for funding:

       United Nations peace operations directly serve the national 
     interests of the United States by helping to support new 
     democracies, lower the global tide of refugees, reduce the 
     likelihood of unsanctioned interventions, and prevent small 
     conflicts from growing into larger wars.

  Failure to control conflict can result in the spread of arms 
trafficking, increased trade in narcotics, terrorism, increased refugee 
flow, increased instability, child soldiers, and the list goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, some regions of Africa are experiencing medical 
emergencies of biblical proportions due to the AIDS virus and other 
infectious diseases. Because of the conflicts in some areas of Africa, 
vital health care and other services are nearly impossible to 
administer. Peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and the Congo and 
elsewhere would help change this and allow vital health care programs 
to reach civilians in war torn regions.
  Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is inexpensive compared to the 
alternatives--war and instability.
  Any administration, including Presidents Reagan and Bush, would 
object to the restrictions and the low funding level in this 
legislation.
  Of current U.N. peacekeeping missions, at least 5 are less than 2 
years old. To set an arbitrary cap now makes no sense. You are denying 
these missions even the opportunity to succeed.
  In the Middle East, the mission in Lebanon significantly increased 
this year with the Israeli withdrawal. By under funding peacekeeping, 
are we not implicitly sending the message that Middle East peace is not 
vital to U.S. national security?
  Yes, congressional oversight is important. That is why the State 
Department briefs Members every month on current peacekeeping 
operations. That is why Congress is notified 15 days before new or 
expanded missions are voted on in the U.N. Security Council, where the 
United States can veto any mission we disapprove of. That is why the 
appropriators are consulted before funding is reprogrammed. But under 
this legislation, the Congress is overreaching with the funding 
limitations.
  But this report goes further and sets international policy on 
peacekeeping by tying the President's hands and ignoring U.S. treaty 
obligations to fund these missions.
  As I said, our assessment is a little over 30 percent. Under Helms-
Biden, we lowered it to 25 percent unilaterally. We then instructed the 
State Department to negotiate with U.N. member countries to get an 
agreement on the 25 percent level. Now, we are failing to even meet the 
25 percent level under Helms-Biden.
  Last year, the United States began to rebuild its credibility and pay 
its financial obligation to the United Nations.
  Today, we owe the U.N. $1.2 billion according to our own State 
Department; $993 million of these arrears are due to our failure to pay 
our peacekeeping assessment.
  There is $56 million in prior holds--$612 million from earlier cuts--
$202 million for the legislative cap on peacekeeping (which is our 
unilateral cap of 25 percent and $123 in non-legislative categories.
  This does not even include what we are now withholding--about $93 
million in past due bills for FY 2000; plus the peacekeeping 
supplemental request of $107 million for FY 2000 that are not approved. 
Plus $225 million in reprogramming holds.
  And now a $241 million cut in the administration's request.
  If we continue on this path, we'll be back in the same situation with 
our arrears as we were a year ago.
  As Ambassador Holbrooke said, ``not paying our assessments to these 
peacekeeping operations would be disastrous.''
  Mr. Chairman, I know our amendment is subject to a point of order. 
But I would urge the chairman to accept this amendment or allow a vote 
on this issue. Let the Congress speak.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Dixon 
amendment. I am fully aware that there are some strong arguments that 
can be made on behalf of the need for U.N. peacekeeping and the need 
for U.S. support for these operations. We should try to meet our 
financial commitments especially in light of our ongoing efforts in New 
York to reduce our current U.N. peacekeeping assessments.
  However, United Nations peacekeeping operations are in deep trouble 
today both in New York and in the field. In some missions, we

[[Page 12328]]

see an all-too-familiar pattern where the peacekeepers are caught in 
the middle of cease fires giving way to armed conflicts and regional 
peace agreements dissolving into open conflict among numerous regional 
actors.
  Congress is all too often being asked to fund deeply flawed 
operations where the administration is unable or unwilling to provide a 
road map for their restructuring. And throwing more money and more 
peacekeepers into missions will be fruitless so long as there is no 
peace to keep.
  Earlier this month, our Permanent Representative to the U.N., 
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, told the world body that it must 
``transform its civilian-run peacekeeping department into a larger and 
more effective military style operation if it is to avoid repeated 
humiliations in the riskier missions it is undertaking around the 
world.'' In short, we need a clear and concise blueprint for the reform 
of the U.N.'s Department Peace Keeping Operations.
  Many observers agree that the peace accord underlying the operation 
in Sierra Leone is now a virtual dead letter and the current U.N. 
forces are simply not able to handle the military threat from the 
insurgency movement threatening the government in that beleaguered 
country.
  And to reinforce Ambassador Holbrooke's concerns about U.N. 
peacekeeping in crisis, the United Nations Secretary General told the 
Security Council in mid-June that the U.N. itself is being forced to 
rethink the entire operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
Other operations in Europe and Asia need more intensive scrutiny and 
oversight.
  In November of last year, I requested our General Accounting Office 
to review the expected costs of ongoing and future operations and the 
extent to which the administration has adhered to its own guidelines 
for the approval of major U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  The report is essential to guide our decisionmaking and review of 
these operations. Yet the GAO is hardly any closer today to completing 
this study than it was last year. Unfortunately, the GAO continues to 
encounter determined foot-dragging and bureaucratic inertia from an 
administration that continues to give the impression that it is being 
less than candid with the Congress and the American people about the 
price tag of U.N. operations and the process under which they are 
approved.
  I would welcome an opportunity to meet with members of the 
administration to address all of these issues over the coming months 
and to find a way to provide greater support for U.N. peacekeeping 
operations in the future.


                             Point 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. This 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 of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield back the balance 
of his time?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman concedes the point of order. 
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


          Amendment No. 66 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 66 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 79, line 2, insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for United Nations peacekeeping missions 
     in the Republic of Angola, the Democratic Republic of the 
     Congo, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the State 
     of Eritrea, the Republic of Sierra Leone, and the western 
     Saharan region of Africa''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ 
minutes.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is offered to clarify and to highlight 
what is actually happening in this bill. We have just had a vigorous 
discussion on many of our concerns about prohibiting the United States, 
in a collaborative way, from fighting or supporting peace. And let me 
eliminate the word fighting and just say supporting peace.
  Specifically, the bill and its supportive language talks about 
specific countries in which funds that are in the bill cannot be used 
to help fund peacekeeping missions, and those countries include some 
that I am listing now: the Republic of Angola, the Democrat Republic of 
the Congo, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the State of 
Eritrea, the Republic of Sierra Leone, and the Western Saharan region 
of Africa.
  We have already seen a visual depiction on this floor of the violence 
that is occurring in Sierra Leone where even children are having their 
limbs hacked off. We already know, that Eritrea and Ethiopia are moving 
towards a peace agreement or a settlement of their differences.
  I, for one, Mr. Chairman, have been to this floor years ago and 
acknowledged that Ethiopia had a bad human rights record, and I had 
asked at that time that their funds be held up until they improved 
their human rights record. But now we are in the midst of seeing a 
resolution to a long-standing conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, 
which I wish had not started. The way this bill is written, however, it 
specifically keeps the funds in this bill now from being used for 
peacekeeping missions in Africa which will impact negatively on their 
potential peace agreement.
  So my amendment specifically adds language that says, yes, America 
can stand up for peacekeeping; yes, we can participate with the U.N., 
not in war but in peacekeeping. I think it is a tragedy that we have 
legislation and have an appropriations bill that denies those dollars, 
denies our relationship with the United Nations, and denies our ability 
to help keep peace on the Continent of Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not necessarily endorse any individual 
peacekeeping operation. I do not believe that is my role. But when the 
committee says and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) says that, 
no matter what happens in the world, that the United States, a year in 
advance, will declare that it will not provide more than $500 million 
for peacekeeping arrangements no matter what happens, then I have to 
say the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reminds me of King Canute, 
the famous king who looked at the tide and said, ``Thou shalt not 
rise.''
  I say ``good luck'' to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). I am 
glad he is prescient enough to see ahead of time what our national 
needs are. I think everybody else in this Chamber is somewhat more 
humble about our ability to see the future.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) is entering this debate because the gentleman serves as the 
ranking member of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
the ranking member of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related

[[Page 12329]]

Programs Subcommittee of Appropriations, as well as being a ranking 
member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, correction: The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) is.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
ranking member of the full committee and deals with these matters quite 
often.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman not agree that the way to establish 
a peace in Sierra Leone is through direct military assistance to 
Nigeria, the regional power, to establish the peace in Sierra Leone?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is not sure what the right way 
to proceed is on that issue. This gentleman is sure that the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr.  Rogers) was not elected to be Secretary of State 
and neither was the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and for the 
Congress to, ahead of time, say that, regardless of what happens, only 
$500 million will be appropriated for peacekeeping is patently absurd.
  Why not telegraph to our enemies around the world ahead of time that 
once we hit the $500 million level, we ``ain't going to do nothing 
about anything?''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Africa.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment.
  I just want to make a couple of points with regard to where we are 
now in terms of U.S. policy toward Africa and vis-a-vis peacekeeping.
  Our Congress has begun to promote trade and investment on the 
continent of Africa. However, these speeches, our votes, for trade and 
investment on the continent of Africa really become hollow words or 
deeds with no real teeth in the measures unless we really do support 
peace and stability on the continent of Africa.
  United States corporations want peace and stability. I am sure they 
support any efforts that this country will be engaged in in order to 
ensure that the continent is stabilized.
  Peace is a prerequisite to development. Funds for peacekeeping 
missions really will prevent millions of individuals from being killed 
on the continent of Africa. This is really a minimum investment which 
our country should step up to the plate to.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering 
this amendment. I believe there are millions of African Americans in 
this country who want their tax money going for such an investment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by simply saying this: As the bill is now 
written, it bars U.N. peacekeeping provisions or funds to be used for 
peacekeeping by the United States of America in certain countries in 
Africa.
  My amendment allows the existing monies in the bill to be used in 
Angola, the Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, sub-Saharan region 
of Africa. It allows the United States to participate in peace, not in 
war.
  I would ask the chairman to waive his point of order so that we can 
invest in peace, and I ask that we do so because peace is what America 
should stand for throughout the world.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey). No, I was not elected Secretary of State. I would not have 
the slightest idea how to be Secretary of State.
  What I was elected to do, though, by my constituents at home and by 
my colleagues in the House is to be sure that we are spending our tax 
dollars wisely. That is what the Committee on Appropriations is 
supposed to do. It falls to my lot, as chairman of the subcommittee, to 
try to establish some discipline on the past extravagant spending by 
the U.N. for peacekeeping missions in the early 1990s, when we spread 
American troops and other nations' troops all around the world.
  Today we have several of these peacekeeping missions around the 
world, and we are paying 25 percent. I think we should have a say in 
how those tax dollars are spent and whether or not they should be spent 
in a given peacekeeping mission.
  Now, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is not correct. 
This bill does not prohibit peacekeeping missions in any country in the 
world. What we say in the report language is that, in any of the 
missions she named, monies can be spent in those missions if it is 
reprogrammed for that purpose. But that is true of all other 
peacekeeping missions that we enter into.
  My opposition to particular U.N. peacekeeping missions has nothing to 
do with where they are. It has everything to do with the nature of the 
task the U.N. is being asked to carry out and whether the conditions 
are favorable for that mission to be effective.
  Everyone who has looked at the failures of the U.N. in Bosnia and 
Somalia, Congress, the GAO, the administration, the U.N. itself, has 
come to the same conclusion that U.N. peacekeeping is not an effective 
policy tool when the situation calls for the use of force or the 
credible threat of force to restore or enforce peace.
  Sierra Leone and Congo are two such situations, and placing U.N. 
troops into such situations has not and will not and cannot bring 
peace.
  I deplore the current situation in Sierra Leone, and I sincerely hope 
that the administration will actively pursue military assistance to 
Nigeria to allow them to establish a real peace in that country that 
can be kept by the U.N. When they do, U.N. monies from this account 
will be reprogrammed to pay our share of the costs of a peacekeeping 
mission there, as we have in the past.
  Sending more poorly trained U.N. troops with no will or ability to 
pursue offensive military action against seasoned troops will not bring 
about that result, and yet that continues to be the administration's 
position. They have supported expanding the U.N. force there to 6,000, 
then to 8,000, then to 11,000, then to 13,000. Shortly we expect a 
notification that they want to expand to 16,500. And it has been 
nothing but a disaster, Mr. Chairman.
  The U.N. was supposed to disarm the rebels. The rebels have more arms 
now than when the U.N. mission began. Why? Because the U.N. troops 
surrendered their arms when they were challenged, they retreated and 
left their arms and their armored personnel carriers for the rebels to 
take and use against the rest.
  It is the same old lesson as Somalia and Bosnia, but I guess it is a 
lesson we have to learn over and over again. If we continue to bet 
everything on the success of the U.N. peacekeeping force waging a 
successful aggressive war against a rebel guerilla army, we will be 
sitting here a year from now, the American taxpayers will be out more 
than $200 million, and Sierra Leone will continue to be mercilessly 
attacked and its children's arms cut off.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the remarks of 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), it appears that we are moving 
in the same direction.
  My question to the gentleman is that, if, for example, and as I 
indicated to him I have stood on this floor and asked for limitations 
on funds to Ethiopia when I questioned their human rights commitment, 
but if Eritrea and Ethiopia were to enter into a solid peace agreement 
in the next 10 days to 2 weeks, or Sierra Leone, Mr. Chairman, what 
would be the remedy out of this legislation for those two entities, to 
be funded for peacekeeping by the

[[Page 12330]]

United States and the United States' involvement with U.N. peacekeeping 
at that time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. That request would be one minute for both the proponent 
and an opponent?
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no language in this bill that would prevent 
the U.S. from paying an assessment for U.N. peacekeeping in Ethiopia 
and Eritrea in fiscal year 2001.
  As I said earlier on another amendment, and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) may not have heard, there now is apparently a 
peace agreement in effect in Ethiopia entered into since we marked up 
this bill. And would I say to the gentlewoman that if, in fact, that is 
the case and, in fact, the administration requests that we reprogram 
monies from this account to pay our share of a peacekeeping operation 
in Ethiopia, it would be eligible; and we would give it due 
consideration, as we do all the others.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do know that Ethiopia and Eritrea are moving toward a 
peace agreement. I hope it is soon.
  What happens to Sierra Leone? I mentioned them. That is where the 
hacking off of limbs is going on.
  The point of the gentleman about Nigerian troops, I applaud Nigeria. 
They have been most effective. They, obviously, have had some 
difficulties themselves. But with Sierra Leone, what happens to the 
funding for peacekeeping for Sierra Leone. What happens if we need more 
monies, because it is a difficult situation?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, we can establish peace in 
Sierra Leone, we can reprogram money for them, as well.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
for providing this insight.
  I think all of us, what we want, Mr. Chairman, is we want to show the 
kind of compassion and commitment to the continent of Africa that we 
have shown with NATO, and SFOR, that we have shown in Central America, 
and we do not want to deny the same kind of support for the 
peacekeeping efforts in Africa.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, my question, basically, is, with the 
reprogram appropriator, I am the one that deals with the policy; and 
so, for example, if the combatants in the Congo, which are at the point 
of agreeing, I have spoken to two presidents of the combatants as we 
speak, if they agree that there will be the withdrawal, and a third 
president I will be talking to today, then where does the money come 
from? Is it withdrawn from the appropriation? How could, then, we move 
for a peacekeeping in the Congo, because they are days and perhaps 
weeks away from agreeing to end all hostilities? Where, then, can the 
money come from?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 1 minute total.
  The CHAIRMAN. On both sides.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne), if the U.N. Security Council votes for a peacekeeping 
mission in Ethiopia, which they have not done as yet, as the gentleman 
knows, but if there is, in fact, a peace accord there and the parties 
are withdrawing, so that a peace exists and an agreement to be enforced 
is in place, and the U.N. votes for a peacekeeping mission in Ethiopia, 
the procedure would be that the administration would notify the 
Congress 15 days in advance of that vote up there for a peacekeeping 
mission, and they would seek to reprogram into that account monies from 
this $500 million kitty, if you will, for that purpose.

                              {time}  1815

  That reprogramming would come to our subcommittee; and if it meets 
the criteria that all the others have met that we have voted for, then 
it would be reprogrammed for that purpose.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, would that be the same process in the Congo, 
which has already had an agreement? As the gentleman knows, the Congo 
is more complex. There are five countries, Uganda and Rwanda and Angola 
and Congo and Namibia, all three. Speaking to several of the 
presidents, they are willing to withdraw the question as to the 
peacekeepers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to answer the 
question, and then I would like to make a statement.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understood the question of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, in the Congo we have a similar situation 
which is at the verge of coming to a conclusion. My question is, if in 
two weeks all of the discussion that I will be having with the various 
presidents of the combatting countries agree they indeed will withdraw 
but the U.N. needs to be there to fill that vacuum left, where is the 
money then for the Congo's peacekeeping? Because the Security Council 
has already approved the peacekeeping plan for the Congo.
  Mr. ROGERS. There would be a reprogramming request the administration 
would send to us. We would review it and the monies, if approved, would 
come out of this account that we are speaking of today, the $500 
million.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder 
of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying there were a million people who 
died in Rwanda. Peacekeeping is vital and I would hope that the 
chairman would waive the point of order and allow us to vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 4690, 
the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations measure. We must restore 
our commitment to the world's International Peacekeeping 
responsibilities, particularly in Africa.
  The appropriation measure before the House today cuts the request for 
the United Nations peacekeeping contributions by as much as one-third, 
or $240 million, below the President's request freezing peacekeeping at 
the FY 2000 appropriated level of $498 million. The cuts are wrongly 
concentrated on areas that oddly need the most support from us in 
Africa.
  The current measure would deny funding for critical peacekeeping 
missions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, Angola, and the Western Saharan region.
  Specifically, the amendment has the effect of striking language in 
the bill that denies funding for five peacekeeping missions in Africa. 
It makes funds available ``for United Nations peacekeeping missions in 
the Republic of Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the 
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the State of Eritrea, the 
Republic of Sierra Leone, and the western Saharan region.''
  As we all know, a serious issue facing the United Nations, the United 
States, and Congress concerning United Nations peacekeeping is the 
extent to which the United Nations has the capacity to restore or keep 
the peace in the changing world environment. We

[[Page 12331]]

need a reliable source of funding and other resources for peacekeeping 
and improved efficiencies of operation.
  We need peacekeeping funds for Africa. These are not peripheral 
concerns for countries trying to establish the rule of law. The 
instability and fragile peace in countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea, the 
Sudan cannot be ignored. United Nations peacekeeping operations involve 
important functions that impartial soldiers can carry out. We all know 
the appropriations measure abandons our commitment to Africa, which is 
not sensible.
  We need to support democratic institutions in a consistent and 
meaningful manner. Proposals for strengthening U.N. peacekeeping and 
other aspects of U.N. peace and security capacities have been adopted 
in the United Nations, by the Clinton Administration, and by the 
Congress. Moreover, most authorities have agreed that if the United 
Nations is to be responsive to post-Cold War challenges, both U.N. 
members and the appropriate U.N. organs will have to continue to 
improve U.N. structures and procedures in the peace and security area.
  This does not mean, however, that we should prevent the use of 
peacekeepers to help facilitate a peace accord. For example, in 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, a peace accord was recently concluded. It cannot 
have come at better time. Ethiopia and the neighboring nations are 
facing a serious crisis. A famine is on the horizon in the Horn of 
Africa unless we continue to provide the necessary food and security 
assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea.
  Peacekeeping forces are also critical to ensure that ports remain 
easily assessible for relief operations. Some say that there may not be 
a famine in the Horn of Africa. But we really do not know. We do know 
that the situation of food insecurity is so bad that conditions are 
approaching the desperate situation that occurred in 1984, when the 
people of that nation did experience a famine.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that 
we can restore peace and security in Africa. These problems are 
intertwined and they deserve our complete support.


                             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 
from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me at this time 
indicate that I had hoped that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
would waive the point of order. At this time I will concede the point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) concedes 
the point of order. The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:


 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $19,470,000.


                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $5,915,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 24(c) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2696(c)).


              american sections, international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by 
     treaties between the United States and Canada or Great 
     Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $5,710,000, 
     of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for 
     representation expenses incurred by the International Joint 
     Commission.


                  international fisheries commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $15,485,000: Provided, That the United States' share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions, 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.

                                 Other


                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by 
     section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $8,216,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 24(c) of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2696(c)).


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 80, strike lines 14 through 19.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals exclusively with the Asia 
Foundation. Last year I had an amendment that would cut funding for the 
North-South Center, East-West Center and the Asia Foundation. To this 
committee's credit, they cut funding for the North-South Center and the 
East-West Center, and this amendment simply asks them to do the last 
thing that they did not do, which is to cut the funding for the Asia 
Foundation.
  This bill would specifically cut the $8.2 million for the Asia 
Foundation. I think that is worth doing for a couple of different 
reasons. First of all, I would just mention what the Senate Committee 
on Appropriations had to say on the Asia Foundation last year. 
Specifically, they said the Asia Foundation is a nongovernment grant-
making organization that Congress has repeatedly urged to aggressively 
pursue private funds to support its activities. The Senate committee 
believes that the time has come for the Asia Foundation to transition 
to private funding.
  I simply agree with what they had to say. In fact, this Congress 
agreed with what they had to say because back in 1995 it was with this 
thinking in mind that Congress cut funding to the Asia Foundation from 
$15 million down to $5 million and basically encouraged them to look 
for private funding. Unfortunately, they have gone the opposite 
direction, because in fact the Asia Foundation funding has grown by 60 
percent to the $8.2 million number, and it is for this reason that this 
amendment says that we have to go back to the original intent of what 
this Congress talked about and what the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations has talked about specifically.
  I would say that this is worth doing. First of all, whether one is a 
Republican or whether one is a Democrat, I think that we would not want 
the Asia Foundation, and I underline the word foundation, to be treated 
any differently than a foundation is in the first district of South 
Carolina or in the fifteenth district of California.
  I say that because if we look at, for instance, the Community 
Foundation which exists in Charleston, South Carolina, it relies on 
public grants out there in the marketplace.
  Bill Gates has said he wants to give away $50 billion. There are a 
lot of people out there vying for those funds; and again, I think the 
Asia Foundation should be either solely a government function or solely 
a private function, a private organization competing for those grants; 
but right now it is a mixture of both, which gives it a competitive 
advantage over foundations in each of our respective congressional 
districts.
  Secondly, I would say there is a lot of duplication. If one looks at 
the work of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the 
World Bank, the IMF, the State Department, the Department of Commerce, 
the CIA and others, they do many of the same things. In fact, if one 
looks at the overall funding in this budget, there is $1.4 billion of 
funding for international organizations, conferences and commissions. 
In fact, if one looks at our overall 1999 budget, U.S. programs solely

[[Page 12332]]

devoted to Asia were basically $3.66 billion. So this $8 million is 
very repetitive.
  In fact, I would say in addition that the Cold War is over and this 
is, I think, a remnant of the Cold War because we have spent $137 
million of taxpayer money in the foundation, basically over the last 45 
years.
  Lastly, I would just make the point that a lot of these grants, given 
the fact that dollars are as competitive as they are, and we have had 
an interesting debate on whether money should or should not go to 
Africa or Sierra Leone or other places, given the fact that dollars are 
as scarce as they are, does it make sense for the Asia Foundation in 
this quasi-public role that it plays to be, and I will just mention a 
few and let one make their own decision. For instance, at the policy 
level the foundation is involved in research with the London School of 
Economics and the Sustainable Development Policy Institute on the 
political economy of education. That is a grant that the Asia 
Foundation placed just last year.
  I see here in Pakistan, women are learning the value of savings 
discipline and gain confidence and self-esteem through income-skills 
training opportunities.
  I see in Bangladesh alternative dispute resolution. Now, there they 
have a village practice wherein the council of elders and opinion 
leaders hears a case and renders a judgment. Asia Foundation promotes 
more equitable and effective dispute resolution.
  I see in the Korean Peninsula workshops for South Koreans on, quote, 
``the perceptions of the International Monetary Fund policy in Korea.''
  I see also in Korea, travel support for members of North Koreans to 
participate in international training programs and study tours in 
business and agriculture.
  I see in Mongolia, since 1993, 28,000 books donated to Mongolian 
organizations, and last year 10,000 English-only language books donated 
to 174 institutions.
  Now leaving aside the question of I do not know how many speak 
English in Mongolia, I thought there was a thing called the Internet 
wherein these same things could be transferred.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) has expired.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
30 seconds on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, lastly I would just make the point here, I see here in 
Vietnam training for the national assembly. I see study tours. I see a 
trip for Vietnamese officials to California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, 
and simply would ask, given the fact that the dollars are as scarce as 
they are, is this the best use of those monies, and for that reason 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Asia Foundation makes an important contribution to 
the development of democracy and economic reform in countries like 
Indonesia, China, other places in that part of the world where vital 
U.S. national interests are at stake. We froze funding at the current 
year level so we are already almost $2 million below what was requested 
of us. Any further cuts would inflict serious damage to this program 
and to U.S. interests and objectives all over Asia. For that reason, I 
urge that we reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which 
seeks to kill the Asia Foundation. If I had my way, we would be 
increasing the funding for that foundation, not straight lining it; but 
an amendment to eliminate the funding for the Asia Foundation is a 
classical example of the wrong amendment at the wrong time. It is the 
wrong amendment because it would be short-sighted to cut funding for an 
organization that plays a key role in advancing U.S. foreign policy 
interests in the Asia Pacific region. With a very modest appropriation, 
the Asia Foundation helps promote and strengthen democracy, human 
rights, open markets and the rule of law in more than a dozen Asian 
countries. So soon after the debate on NTR for China the notion that we 
are going to wipe out one of the premier agencies promoting rule of law 
in that part of the world makes no sense whatsoever. It is the wrong 
time because many Asian countries are experiencing profound 
socioeconomic and political change. The foundation's cost-effective 
work is more important than ever.
  Last year, an amendment much like this to slash the foundation's 
authorization was defeated with strong bipartisan support. I join with 
the chairman of the subcommittee and my other colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle in urging the body to support the Asia Foundation and to 
reject this counterproductive amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). 
The Asia Foundation has a 45-year proven track record. Helping Asia 
develop into a stable market-oriented democratic region is an important 
American national security objective.
  Mr. Chairman, the developing countries in Asia are in desperate need 
of legal reforms. American commerce and local human rights are early 
beneficiaries of such rule-of-law programming. By defeating the Sanford 
amendment the foundation will be able to support new legal reform 
initiatives for Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, 
Vietnam, and China.
  The Asia Foundation is a small, cost-effective, private institution 
that plays a very important complementary role in advancing U.S. 
foreign policy interests around the world. There are some things it can 
clearly do more effectively and cost efficiently than can our 
government agencies. We need the Asia Foundation's efforts. This Member 
urges his colleagues to support the work of the Committee on 
Appropriations, maintain the modest funding for the Asia Foundation, 
and oppose the Sanford amendment.
  Though this Member certainly shares his colleague's interest in 
reducing wasteful Federal spending, the institution targeted by this 
amendment certainly does not fall in that category. On the contrary, a 
closer examination of the Asia Foundation and of its successful 
programs will confirm its cost effective contributions to American 
interests around the world. Indeed, our modest investment in the Asia 
Foundation is money well spent.
  Programs and investments in reform minded individuals in Korea, 
Taiwan and the Philippines directly supported and influenced the 
incredible democratic and economic transformations there. The Asia 
Foundation remains on the front lines doing the same today in Asia's 
new, emerging democracies like Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Mongolia as 
well as helping lay the foundation for positive change in authoritarian 
countries like China and Vietnam.
  Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of the recent 
economic crisis. One need not look any further than Indonesia, a 
keystone of American national security policy in Southeast Asia. Now is 
the time to take advantage of this climate of change and expand 
programs advancing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, economic 
reform and sustainable recovery.
  The Sanford amendment would completely eliminate all funding for the 
Asia Foundation. The pending appropriations bill does not increase 
funding for the Asia Foundation--in fact, unfortunately it freezes it 
at last year's modest level of $8.2 million, some $7 million below its 
authorized level and $1.7 million below the President's request. Last 
year, during consideration of the American Embassy Security Act, this 
body strongly rejected the effort by the gentleman from South Carolina 
to severely cut the Asia Foundation. Indeed, this Member urges his 
colleagues to reject this even more draconian amendment which would 
completely zero out funding.

[[Page 12333]]

  The programs of the Asia Foundation support this national security 
objective. The Sanford amendment would severely cut this NGO's programs 
and further restrict our ability to influence positive change in a 
region with over one-half of the world's entire population. The long-
term cost of this amendment to U.S. foreign policy objectives certainly 
outweighs any short-term savings it may have.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with his remarks as 
well as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, with 
whom I serve, and my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  I would like to ask my good friend, who I have served with now for 
three terms, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), a 
question, and that is whether or not the distinguished gentleman has 
visited the Asia Foundation and seen the programmatic structure that 
they offer for developing democracy and economic opportunity?
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. In cyberspace or in terms of geography?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In actual visitation.
  Mr. SANFORD. I have not been into the building. In New York, I have 
been once into the foyer and that is about it, but I have been to their 
Web site.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I have had that good fortune of visiting 
there, and with the entire board; and I have seen their work and they 
do an extraordinary job, as Asia is developing, in developing the rule 
of law and in economic reform that is necessary for those countries to 
survive.

                              {time}  1830

  Most respectfully, I say to my friend from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford), who was wrong on the North-South Center in Florida, and the 
gentleman is wrong on Asia.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida, (Mrs. Fowler), who is a very important Member and senior 
member of the Committee on Armed Services dealing with national 
security.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment by my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford). I have had firsthand experience with the Asia Foundation and 
can personally attest to the quality of their work and their programs.
  I have seen the need for their work in the developing Asian nations 
and, for example, the Chinese have approached the Foundation to act as 
a mediator in talks with Taiwan. There are very few issues of a higher 
national security interest to our country than the relationship between 
China and Taiwan. This is exactly the kind of program we should 
encourage in the appropriations process, and that is why I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding me the time and rise in strong 
opposition to the Sanford amendment, which cuts all funding for the 
Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation, not to be confused with any other 
foundation dealing with Asia, is domiciled in San Francisco, in my 
district. I am very well acquainted with the great and excellent work 
that it does.
  The work that they do is important for U.S. government officials and 
shows a critical role that in-country presence plays in understanding 
local conditions. The Asia Foundation advances U.S. interests through 
its ability to deliver high-quality programs on the ground through its 
network of offices in Asia, which some of our colleagues have addressed 
here.
  In the short amount of time allocated to me, I would urge our 
colleagues to oppose this amendment, support the work of the Asia 
Foundation, it is a way to peacefully resolve some of our issues out 
there, as well as building a rule of law in many countries that are 
fragile democracies just emerging who need just the kind of assistance 
that the Asia Foundation is experienced in providing. I urge a no vote 
on this amendment.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Sanford amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations 
bill, a measure that would totally eliminate funding for the Asia 
Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Asia Foundation's important work focuses on a 
dynamic region of the world where over half of the planet's population 
resides.
  Today, the Asia-Pacific region looms large on the world stage and is 
increasingly intertwined with the United States. It is a diverse, 
complex region with countries at both extremes in terms of population, 
economic development, political stability and social/cultural change. 
The Asia-Pacific region is at the same time America's largest market as 
well as the locus of its most aggressive competitors. In addition to 
its economic impact, many of the countries in Asia and the Pacific are 
undergoing structural changes in their political and social systems 
that pose potentially serious threats to the stability of the region 
and the very world. Indeed, major conflicts and wars involving the U.S. 
have arisen in the region in the past and we must be vigilant in 
protecting against their reoccurrence in the future.
  Clearly, Americans must attach greater priority to Asia and the 
Pacific than they have ever done, and be prepared to understand and 
respond to the challenges and opportunities that confront us.
  Mr. Chairman, the mission of the Asia Foundation addresses these 
critical concerns, in addition to promoting democratic government, free 
market economies and respect for rule of law in the developing nations 
of the Asia-Pacific.
  I urge our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to defeat the Sanford amendment 
and maintain the modest funding for the Asia Foundation that serves 
vital U.S. foreign policy interests in this most important part of the 
world.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 92, line 4, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 80, line 20, through page 92, line 4, 
is as follows:


           Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund

       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
     5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September 
     30, 2001, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any 
     contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the 
     rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are 
     not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform 
     Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for 
     Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on 
     compensation for personal services.


                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2001, to remain 
     available until expended.

[[Page 12334]]




                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the Department of State to the National 
     Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,872,000 to remain available 
     until expended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors


                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, as authorized by the United States Information and 
     Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, the United 
     States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, as amended, and the 
     Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, to 
     carry out international communication activities, including 
     the purchase, installation, rent, construction, and 
     improvement of facilities for radio and television 
     transmission and reception to Cuba, $419,777,000, of which 
     not to exceed $16,000 may be used for official receptions 
     within the United States as authorized by section 804(3) of 
     such Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1747(3)), not to exceed $35,000 
     may be used for representation abroad as authorized by 
     section 302 of such Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1452) and section 
     905 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4085), and 
     not to exceed $39,000 may be used for official reception and 
     representation expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; 
     and in addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and 
     revenue from business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in 
     receipts from cooperating international organizations, and 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 in receipts from privatization 
     efforts of the Voice of America and the International 
     Broadcasting Bureau, to remain available until expended for 
     carrying out authorized purposes.


                   broadcasting capital improvements

       For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase 
     and installation of necessary equipment for radio and 
     television transmission and reception as authorized by 
     section 801 of the United States Information and Educational 
     Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1471), $18,358,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 704(a) of 
     such Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1477b(a)).

       General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency

       Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and 
     differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5, 
     United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; and hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, 
     but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 403. There shall be in the Department of State not 
     more than 71 Deputy Assistant Secretaries of State.
       Sec. 404. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board 
     of Governors to provide equipment, technical support, 
     consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the 
     Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
       Sec. 405. (a) Section 1(a)(2) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``and the Deputy Secretary of State'' and inserting 
     ``, the Deputy Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary 
     of State for Management and Resources''.
       (b) Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``Deputy Secretary of State for Management and 
     Resources.'' after the item relating to the ``Deputy 
     Secretary of State''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                       TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Maritime Administration


                       maritime security program

       For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $98,700,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                        operations and training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $84,799,000.


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $10,621,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $1,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $3,795,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.


           administrative provisions--maritime administration

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities 
     and services and make necessary repairs in connection with 
     any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government 
     property under control of the Maritime Administration, and 
     payments received therefore shall be credited to the 
     appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That 
     rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy 
     for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs 
     shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal 
     year from the construction fund established by the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriation Act.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $390,000, as authorized by section 
     1303 of Public Law 99-83.

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $8,866,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ 
     consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in 
     excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the 
     Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each 
     Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse 
     Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the 
     exception of the chairperson, who is permitted 125 billable 
     days.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,182,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b); non-monetary awards to private citizens; and 
     not to exceed $29,000,000 for payments to State and local 
     enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant 
     to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
     sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1991, $290,928,000: Provided, That the 
     Commission is authorized to make available for official 
     reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 
     from available funds.

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not 
     to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed 
     $500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to 
     buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed 16) and hire 
     of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $207,909,000, of which not to 
     exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2002, for research and policy studies: Provided, That 
     $200,146,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and 
     collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are

[[Page 12335]]

     received during fiscal year 2001 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2001 appropriation estimated at $7,763,000: 
     Provided further, That any offsetting collections received in 
     excess of $200,146,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall remain 
     available until expended, but shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 2001.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, 
     $14,097,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $2,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $121,098,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for 
     use to contract with a person or persons for collection 
     services in accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718, as 
     amended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, not to exceed 
     $121,098,000 of offsetting collections derived from fees 
     collected for premerger notification filings under the Hart-
     Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 
     18(a)) shall be retained and used for necessary expenses in 
     this appropriation, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting 
     collections are received during fiscal year 2001, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $0, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That section 605 
     of Public Law 101-162 (15 U.S.C. 18a note), as amended, is 
     further amended by striking ``$45,000 which'' and inserting: 
     ``(1) $45,000, if as a result of the acquisition, the 
     acquiring person would hold an aggregate total amount of the 
     voting securities and assets of the acquired person in excess 
     of $35,000,000 but not exceeding $99,999,999; (2) $100,000, 
     if as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person would 
     hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and 
     assets of the acquired person equal to or in excess of 
     $100,000,000 but not exceeding $199,999,999; or (3) $200,000, 
     if as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person would 
     hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and 
     assets of the acquired person equal to or in excess of 
     $200,000,000. Such fees'': Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available to the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
     available for obligation for expenses authorized by section 
     151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement 
     Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242; 105 Stat. 2282-2285).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.

       The Clerk read as follows:

                       Legal Services Corporation


               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     as amended, $141,000,000, of which $134,575,000 is for basic 
     field programs and required independent audits; $1,125,000 is 
     for the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as 
     may be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; and $5,300,000 is for management and 
     administration.


               Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Chambliss

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

       Amendment No. 54 offered by Mr. Chambliss:
       Page 92, insert after line 14 the following:
       If a grantee of the Legal Services Corporation does not 
     prevail in a civil action brought by the grantee against 
     farmers with respect to migrant employees under the Migrant 
     and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1801 et seq.), the grantee shall pay the attorneys' fees, the 
     amount of which as determined by the court, incurred by the 
     defendant to such action. If a grantee is required under this 
     section to pay such fees, the Legal Services Corporation 
     shall reduce the next grant to the grantee by the amount of 
     such fees paid by the grantee.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to require the Legal 
Services Corporation to pay the attorneys fees in any case in which it 
is filed by the Legal Services Corporation against a farmer under the 
Migrant Worker Protection Act, and which case is lost by the Legal 
Services Corporation. In other words, they do not prevail in this 
lawsuit.
  We have had a problem in my State of Georgia over the last number of 
years in securing agriculture workers to plant our crops, help U.S. 
till the crops and harvest the crops and, as a result, our farmers have 
been forced from time to time to use workers that are not legally 
within the United States.
  We have been working on trying to modify the current H-2A program, 
which is a farmer worker program, that allows farmers to come into the 
United States on a legal basis so that we can reduce paperwork, make 
this program less expensive on our farmers and make it more workable. 
In the meantime, what we have seen happen is that our farmers who have 
made a decision to hire legal workers under the current H-2A program as 
opposed to working illegal migrant workers who are not in the United 
States under legal conditions have run into a problem, and that problem 
is this: The Legal Services Corporation in my State and any number of 
other States around the country where farmers have made a decision to 
bring legal workers into the country to work under the H-2A program 
have run into a stonewall with the Legal Services Corporation in that 
they are filing lawsuits against farmers who have workers here legally 
for technical violations of the H-2A act, not substantive violations, 
but purely technical violations.
  Let me talk about our farmers a minute. My farmers are hard-working 
people. They are good business people, but they have encountered a 
problem here that is purely a legal situation that they are not used to 
having to address. They are doing everything they can. They are 
securing advisers. They are securing attorneys to advise them, as well 
as independent contractors to advise them on the technical compliance 
with H-2A, but the problem is, that the Legal Services Corporation has 
a hoard of lawyers who are doing nothing but going after people who are 
violating the H-2A law from a technical perspective.
  Mr. Chairman, now, I do not want to deny any employee the full 
benefit of all rights that are guaranteed to them under the 
Agricultural Workers Protection Act, but we have got an excellent 
plaintiff's bar in my State. There are excellent plaintiff bars all 
over the country, very capable and determined to ensure that workers 
have the benefit of all of the rights guaranteed to them. They are the 
ones that ought to be prosecuting any case against an individual from a 
pure plaintiff's case perspective, but that is not what is happening.
  Legal Services Corporation is going out, and I question the ethics of 
this, they are soliciting cases from workers who are coming into this 
country under the H-2A program in a legal manner, bringing them into 
the Department of Labor, grilling them on whether their employer is 
technically in compliance with every single aspect of the H-2A law 
which is a very demanding law. It is a very expensive law, it requires 
housing. It requires a higher wage rate than what most of the farmers 
are used to paying, any number of other technical violations.
  What is happening is that Legal Services Corporation is taking the 
role away from plaintiff's lawyers who are capable of looking after the 
rights of these workers, and our farmers are having to go to the extent 
of defending cases, not just in the State of Georgia. There are three 
cases pending right now against vegetable growers in my State, in the 
part of the State where I live, two of the cases are filed out of

[[Page 12336]]

State. My employers, my farmers are having to go to Texas to defend one 
lawsuit where the workers came in.
  They went back to Mexico, Legal Services went into Mexico and brought 
them back into the United States for the sole purpose of filing this 
case against Georgia growers in the State of Texas and the other case 
is going on in the State of Florida. My farmers have expended in excess 
of $200,000 and reasonable attorneys fees for the purpose of defending 
these lawsuits which really they have no substance to them.
  They are purely for technical violations. There is no individual here 
under the H-2A law that has been harmed in any way, and there is no 
allegation of such in these lawsuits. What we are simply trying to say 
is, look, if Legal Services Corporation is going to go after these 
folks from a plaintiff's perspective and they lose the case, they ought 
to have to foot the bill for the attorneys fees and the particular 
Legal Services office shall be deducted from their budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time, and I am still reserving 
my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really concerned, as many of U.S. are on this 
side, about this amendment and should be. This amendment singles out 
farmer workers, migrant farm workers, for this harsh treatment.
  Legal Services was created to protect those who do not have the 
resources to defend themselves. We know that. We have discussed this on 
the floor. We had a bipartisan amendment here which increased the 
funding for Legal Services, and that funding will continue to grow, 
because both sides see the need for Legal Services to do this work.
  What this amendment does in a most mean-spirited way is to single out 
migrant farm workers and to say that if we take their case, Legal 
Services takes their case, we better win, because if we lose, we are 
going to have to pay for having taken on a right case. We do not do 
this for anyone else. We just single out migrant farm workers, and for 
that reason alone there should be opposition.
  There is also the understanding that farm workers in general are the 
poorest of the poor in this country, so this sets a tone for anyone who 
works in the fields, who does that kind of work, that you have no 
protection, because the next step will be for all farm workers or for 
anybody who is in that field. And just on that alone, I think that we 
should in a bipartisan way really defeat this amendment, and I would 
hope that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) understands what 
we are trying to do today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a change in the law. The debate, 
the argument that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has put 
forward, among other things, was referring to the H-2A program, but the 
amendment deals with the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers 
program. H-2A workers are not covered under that law. They have no 
rights under that law.
  The only people this amendment affects are U.S. farm workers who 
happen to be represented by Legal Services as opposed to other private 
lawyers or other legal aid programs. There are many, many laws that 
provide attorneys fees for plaintiffs in the Labor law context; the 
gentleman selected out one law and one group of people, U.S. farm 
workers who happen to be represented by Legal Services Corporation.
  The gentleman is doing it on an appropriations bill, a fundamental 
change in a very narrow subset of one law that happens to deal with the 
lowest income workers in America today. If there is an argument, which 
I do not think there is, for allowing defendants against workers who 
win in lawsuits who ultimately prevail to collect attorneys fees, it 
should be done across board. It should be given the appropriate 
hearings. It should go to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
and/or to the Committee on the Judiciary, and there should be a 
discussion of the merits of it to select out farm workers, U.S. farm 
workers, not H-2A workers, not foreign guest workers; they have no 
rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act, but to 
select them out is wrong and also by the way, not authorized under the 
rules, I think we will find out.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I understand this may be subject to a 
point of order, but my farmers are doing their best to comply with the 
law to bring legal workers in, and the gentleman and I have had a 
number of discussions over the last 5 years about making some changes 
under the H-2A law, to make it a little easier to get those workers in, 
but what we are seeing is in that Legal Services Corporation is taking 
those workers that are brought in legally, they are actually bypassing 
thousands and thousands of workers at farms that are here illegally to 
get the farm where workers are here legally.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to repeat again, this 
amendment and the law that it seeks to amend have no application to H-
2A workers. None of the regulations, none of the laws affecting them 
are covered in this law, and the H-2A workers are excluded from 
coverage under this law. The gentleman's amendment will not even deal 
with the lawsuits dealing with H-2A that the gentleman is seeking to 
address with the amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand 
the gentleman's point. Let me see if the gentleman agrees with me, in 
situations somewhere H-2A workers come into this country legally, and 
we all know they have certain rights under that particular law, would 
the gentleman agree that there are plaintiff's bars in this country 
that are very capable of representing those folks as opposed to Legal 
Services Corporation actively soliciting individuals who are here under 
the H-2A program to file suits for them and which they are doing on a 
daily basis in my State, where folks are simply trying to do the right 
thing, as opposed to the plaintiff's bar representing those folks in 
cases where there really are harms being done?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) 
has expired.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional minute for the gentleman to respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to each side having an additional 
minute?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each has 1 additional minute.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have to disagree with his conclusion. If there is one group of 
workers in America who are not able to get the services of the private 
bar because they do not have anywhere near the income to possibly 
retain them, it is migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. They are 
employed seasonally; they are getting very low pay; they have no 
ability to retain private lawyers. This is the classic example of whom 
the Legal Services Programs should be representing.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly what 
plaintiffs' lawyers do. Income is not necessarily a requirement for 
plaintiffs' lawyers to handle those cases. I understand it may be 
subject to a point of order, but I think that Legal Services 
Corporation needs to understand

[[Page 12337]]

that if we are legislating here, that if they continue with this 
pattern, we are going to come after them in the legislative role, we 
will have the necessary hearings, and we are going to proceed with this 
legislation in the proper forum if this is subject to a point of order.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me use the 1 minute that I have been 
granted to make an observation. I spoke on this floor last week about 
the fact that we should just be allowed to speak, and the majority 
wanted the unanimous consent to limit the time. Now I notice that on 
every amendment, we are adding time. I do not have a problem with it, 
but if we have an agreement, then we should stick on that agreement.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violations clause 
2 of Rule XXI, and I am asking for a ruling on the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the ruling of the Chair, 
whatever it may be.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that the amendment proposes to change 
existing law by mandating specific consequences in certain 
circumstances involving the Legal Services Corporation. As such, it 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of Rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


          administrative provision--legal services corporation

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the 
     provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of 
     Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to 
     the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same 
     terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that 
     all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall 
     be deemed to refer instead to 2000 and 2001, respectively.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended, 
     $1,700,000.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $252,624,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 2001 to 
     remain available until expended, and from fees collected in 
     fiscal year 1999, $140,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward 
     funding a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and 
     provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (1) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance; (2) any travel and transportation to or from such 
     meetings; and (3) any other related lodging or subsistence: 
     Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections 
     6(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4)) 
     and 31(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78ee(d)) shall be credited to this account as offsetting 
     collections.

                     Small Business Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     105-135, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $299,615,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by 
     the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing 
     activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be 
     credited to this account, to be available for carrying out 
     these purposes without further appropriations.


                 Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Latham:
       In title V, in the item relating to ``Small Business 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', before the period at 
     the end, insert the following:
     : Provided further, That, of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $4,000,000 shall be for the National Veterans 
     Business Development Corporation established under section 
     33(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c)

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will control the time 
in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Today, I rise in strong support of the Talent-Latham-Filner amendment 
and hope its passage will happen today.
  I really want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), a member of the House Committee on Veterans 
Affairs, my good friends, for their work in the authorization process 
for these funds. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has also 
supported this program by including $4 million for the Veterans 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Program.
  This amendment simply designates the $4 million in this program to be 
used specifically for the National Veterans' Business Development 
Corporation. These funds will help that corporation establish a 
cohesive assistance and information network for veteran-owned 
businesses. These funds will also help the corporation to establish an 
advisory board on professional certification to work on the problems 
service members face in transitioning to the private sector workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our Nation's servicemen and women to make 
their transition into civilian life much easier. I urge my colleagues 
to support this noncontroversial amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman who is a 
very hard-working member of our subcommittee and has put many hours 
into its work, but especially on this particular part of the bill. I 
want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman of the Committee on 
Small Business. It is a worthy amendment and one that we wholeheartedly 
support.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
very, very much. He has been a true advocate for our cause here; and 
his allowing us to, first of all, put the money into the bill and also 
support directing these dollars to where they are really going to help 
veterans I think is so important.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for this 
amendment and would hope we would be able to pass it by voice vote here 
today.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the Talent-Latham-Filner amendment. I 
want to make sure that everybody understands

[[Page 12338]]

that this amendment today is simply to clarify language that is 
contained in the bill before us. What we are asking for or putting in 
the bill is a provision that directs $4 million that is listed in the 
bill for veterans' programs to make sure that this $4 million goes 
specifically to the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. 
It does not require any offsets because all of the funds are derived 
from the salaries and expenses account of the Small Business 
Administration.
  The Veterans' Affairs Committee on which I serve and on which I am 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits has a long history of 
interest in and commitment to the issue raised today by this amendment. 
When we passed H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small 
Business Development Act of 1999, we incorporated this Business 
Development Corporation into this through Public Law 106-50. It is a 
federally chartered corporation responsible for assisting our veterans, 
especially those veterans who are catastrophically disabled, with the 
formation and expansion of small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies the intent of Congress. 
Currently, the amount is listed in the committee report as ``Veterans' 
Programs'' and there is some apprehension about how the SBA would 
interpret that report language. There has already been a great delay of 
Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business 
Development Act, in which the corporation is authorized; and this 
amendment will put an end to this delay.
  This amendment will make it clear that Congress wants the corporation 
funded and wants to work to establish assistance centers for veterans 
working with private and public organizations to help veterans get the 
benefits of the act, the veterans who served this country and deserve 
our support.
  Last year, the Committee on Small Business moved the bill through 
this House. The committee, led by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Talent), designed the bill to coordinate assistance to veterans who 
were seeking to start their own businesses and reach for their piece of 
the American dream. We passed that act unanimously, and the centerpiece 
of that legislation was the National Veterans Business Development 
Corporation, which was set up to coordinate private and public sector 
activities on behalf of veterans and begin the establishment of a 
nationwide network of veterans assistance centers, which would assist 
veterans with the help they need to start their own businesses and take 
hold of their American dream.
  This amendment does not take money from any other program, it is 
there in the bill, and it is intended for this corporation. We clarify 
the intent and ensure the funds will go to this corporation. We do not 
increase the amount set forth in the bill.
  Veterans who establish their own businesses are a double asset to 
America. They contribute the skills they acquired through military 
service to the development of our economy, and they are a key link in 
the expansion of employment opportunities for others. It is simply good 
sense to give them meaningful support in today's global economy. After 
serving our Nation in uniform, our veterans have come home to 
contribute to America's economic success again and again, not only 
after World War II, but after every subsequent conflict.
  Using the skills gained during their service, veterans have become 
successful entrepreneurs, continuing to contribute to our Nation 
through their success. Let us make sure that all of them have a chance 
to realize the success which, of course, benefits all Americans. I hope 
we support this amendment, as we supported the authorization bill, that 
is, unanimously. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for 
offering the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) for being here today to present this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 102, line 14 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 95, line 4 through page 102, line 14 
is as follows:


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $10,905,000.


                     business loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $2,500,000, to be available 
     until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans, 
     $137,800,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which 
     $45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That during fiscal year 2001, commitments to 
     guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed 
     $3,750,000,000: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     2001, commitments for general business loans authorized under 
     section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended, shall not 
     exceed $10,000,000,000 without prior notification of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act: 
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2001, commitments 
     to guarantee loans under section 303(b) of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed 
     $500,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $129,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, as amended, $140,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $136,000,000, which may be transferred 
     to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses, 
     of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of 
     the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of 
     disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be 
     transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office 
     of Inspector General; of which $125,646,000 is for direct 
     administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry 
     out the direct loan program; and of which $9,854,000 is for 
     indirect administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount 
     in excess of $9,854,000 to be transferred to and merged with 
     appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect 
     administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.


        administrative provision--small business administration

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the Small Business 
     Administration in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                        State Justice Institute


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1992 (Public Law 102-572 (106 Stat. 4515-4516)), 
     $4,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise

[[Page 12339]]

     provided under existing law, or under existing Executive 
     order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     which: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any 
     means for any project or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; 
     (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) 
     contracts out or privatizes any functions, or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
        (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States available to the agencies 
     funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, 
     projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding 
     for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of 
     personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) 
     results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels 
     for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
     shipyards located outside of the United States.
       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds: (1) that the United Nations undertaking is 
     a peacekeeping mission; (2) that such undertaking will 
     involve United States Armed Forces under the command or 
     operational control of a foreign national; and (3) that the 
     President's military advisors have not submitted to the 
     President a recommendation that such involvement is in the 
     national security interests of the United States and the 
     President has not submitted to the Congress such a 
     recommendation.
       Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose 
     for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal 
     year 2001.

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

       Sec. 611. Earmarks, limitations, or minimum funding 
     requirements contained in any other Act shall not be 
     applicable to funds appropriated under this Act.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against section 611.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Specifically, page 611 constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and is, therefore, in violation 
of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the House.
  Let me just point out for the Members that section 611 provides that 
earmarks, limitations or minimum funding requirements contained in any 
other act shall not be applicable to funds appropriated under this act. 
This provision purports to render ineffective any earmark limitation or 
minimum funding requirements contained in any act. The effect of this 
provision is very, very far reaching.
  For example, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act, which was 
signed into law last year and which went through my committee, went 
through the full committee, and was on this floor for the better part 
of a week, and obviously went through the same process on the Senate 
side, and it has a number of minimum funding requirements with respect 
to programs that would be declared null and void.
  So I would ask the Chair that this section be declared out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair finds that the provision in the bill at section 611 
proposes to supercede existing laws. As such, it constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of Rule XXI and is not 
protected by the waiver against other provisions in the bill. The point 
of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as all of my colleagues know, I am a big fan of the 
census, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to be 
congratulated for fully funding the decennial census over the past 3 
years. This bill is no exception.
  However, the competing pressures for funds in this bill have left 
other programs in the census underfunded, which I hope we can address 
as well as one item that was not even a part of the President's 
request, and that is to begin to develop methods for counting Americans 
overseas.
  The bill currently funds other nondecennial programs at the current 
year level, but $48 million less than the President's request. That 
flat funding is starting to take a toll on the ability of the Census 
Bureau to carry out its responsibilities. If this funding level 
persists, it is likely that current programs and new initiatives will 
have to be reduced. Among those programs are the American Community 
Survey, as well as improvements in the survey of income and program 
participation. These also do not include funding for planning to 
renovate or replace the World War II-era building that houses the 
Census Bureau, which is in very serious need of repair.

                              {time}  1900

  I certainly understand the difficulties faced by the chairman in 
balancing competing pressures. However, I hope that the chairman will 
work with us to see that some of these shortfalls in the Census budget 
are restored as this bill goes to conference.
  Finally, I would like to address briefly a subject that is not 
covered in this bill, the counting of Americans overseas. One of the 
failings of the 2000 census is a fundamental inequity in counting 
Americans overseas. In 1990 and

[[Page 12340]]

again in the 2000 census, the Census Bureau has used administrative 
records to count Federal civilian and military employees abroad.
  That leaves many Americans overseas uncounted. There was not time 
before the Census to develop the methodologies necessary to count 
Americans overseas.
  We must make sure that the same mistake does not happen in 2010. I am 
proposing that funds be included in the Census Bureau budget to begin 
the research necessary to count all Americans overseas. It is my 
understanding that my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan 
Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census, supports these 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, the current mark for the Census Bureau in this bill is 
$51 million less than the President's request. For the third year, the 
funding for salaries and expenses is funded at the same level, forcing 
the Census Bureau to finance the mandated cost of living adjustments, 
promotions, and increased pension contributions through staff attrition 
and cuts. That flat funding is starting to take a toll on the ability 
of the Census Bureau to carry out its responsibilities. If this funding 
level persists, it is likely that current programs and new initiatives 
will have to cut programs like the measurement of e-commerce and 
collaborative work with Canada and Mexico to improve our import and 
export data.
  These cuts include a reduction of $14 million from the President's 
request for periodic programs which includes cuts are reductions in the 
funding for the American Community Survey the survey to replace the 
census long form and improvements in the Survey of Income and Program 
Participation to improve our measurement of the well being of children, 
health insurance coverage, and poverty. These cuts also zero out that 
funds for developing plans to renovate or replace the World War II era 
building that houses the Census Bureau. This building is in such bad 
shape that the employees can't drink the water, and some parts of the 
building are so infested with pigeons that the health of the employees 
is endangered. The Census Bureau Director has been moved out of his 
office three times this year because water was cascading from the 
ceiling.
  I understand the difficulties faced by the Chairman. There are a wide 
variety of programs in this bill and each one has a constituency that 
argues for more funds to carry out what are useful and valuable 
functions. However, I hope that the Chairman will work with us to see 
that some of these shortfalls in the census budget are restored as this 
bill goes to conference.
  I have proposed that funds be included in the Census Bureau budget to 
begin the research necessary to count all Americans overseas, and while 
those funds are not included in this bill, it is an issue we must 
revolve. Counting Americans oversees is adding one more Herculean task 
to the already difficult job of taking the census, but it must be done. 
We have included some of those living overseas. We can't turn out back 
of those left out who also wish to be counted.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on the Census on the inclusion in the next Census of 
overseas Americans, and want to continue to work with her to resolve 
this important issue.
  By the time I became chairman of the subcommittee on the Census, 
plans for the 2000 Census were already so far along that it was 
impossible to make provisions for counting Americans who live overseas 
and who are not part of our military family. In fact, the Census Bureau 
indicated that they just did not know how to do it and that it would 
require considerable research.
  I am asking today that the Census Bureau begin work to come up with a 
plan for counting all Americans overseas in the 2010 Census. The Bureau 
must find a way to get this done. These are hard-working American 
citizens who vote and pay taxes, just like and the gentleman and I. It 
is not fair that they are left out of the decennial census just because 
it is a difficult job to count them.
  It will be a challenge to count Americans living abroad, there is no 
doubt about that, but challenges are not new to the Census Bureau. It 
can be done, and it is important that the Bureau begin researching this 
now so that they will be included in the 2010 Census. I will discuss it 
further with the Director, but I would like to see the Bureau put forth 
a proposal for counting overseas Americans as expeditiously as 
possible.
  Let me also take a moment to stress my concern for the state of the 
Census building out in Suitland, Maryland. The building is in a serious 
state of disrepair, and is a serious environmental and health liability 
to the dedicated employees we ask to work there. We must work together 
to find a solution to this problem and find it quickly.
  I want to thank the chairman for his work on this bill. As a member 
of the subcommittee, I understand how difficult his job is. I pledge to 
work with him and find solutions to these issues that will not upset 
the delicate balance he has achieved in funding important programs in 
this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I did 
not intend to speak, but I went to Suitland High School, so I went to 
high school 5 minutes from this Census facility.
  I have been around for a long time, and graduated from high school 
over 40 years ago. Those buildings were in need of repair at the time I 
graduated from high school in 1957. They were built, of course, during 
the war as temporary facilities.
  I appreciate the gentleman's making a comment on that for the quality 
of life of our Federal employees who work there, and I appreciate very 
much the chairman yielding me the time to make that comment, and his 
focus on that issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues from the Committee on 
Government Reform for bringing their concerns to our attention, and for 
their appreciation for the difficult choices we faced in putting 
together this bill.
  We have done our best to make sure the 2000 Census had every dime 
that it needed. As a result, we have not been able to fund other 
ongoing or new programs at the levels requested in the President's 
budget, but I appreciate the importance of many of these programs, and 
will be happy to work with our colleagues as we move through the bill 
to resolve some of their concerns that they have expressed about the 
funding levels in the bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I share the desire of the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to work with our colleagues on the Committee on 
Government Reform to address their concerns. The activities of the 
Census Bureau are too important to be shortchanged, and we must make 
sure that their work is not obstructed by a lack of sufficient 
resources.
  I look forward to working with the chairman to deal with this issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee (Mr. Rogers) 
regarding the funding of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, the Helsinki Commission.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) a designee 
of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page 12341]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy about the funding levels 
of the bill for the Helsinki Commission. The Commission's budget this 
year included unobligated funds from previous years, per the 
understanding of the conference committee.
  Do I understand correctly that the chairman and others on the 
committee will work together in the conference to ensure that the 
Commission has the necessary resources to continue operations at the 
current level of activity and staff?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the special problem the 
Commission faces, having funded a portion of the current year 
requirements with carryover funds.
  I would be happy to continue to work with the gentleman as the bill 
proceeds to ensure the necessary funding level for the Commission's 
important work.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for that 
encouraging comment. I appreciate very much the gentleman's commitment 
to the extraordinary work advanced by the Commission. The Helsinki 
Commission remains at the forefront of many of the cutting issues in 
the OSCE region, a region with vital interests to the United States.
  From the Balkans to the Baltics, the Helsinki Commission continues to 
provide important leadership in advancing democracy, human rights, and 
the rule of law. We do it in a completely bipartisan way.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member on the Helsinki Commission 
who has served with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for 
approximately 18 years, I want to thank the gentleman also for his 
willingness to work with us in conference regarding the Helsinki 
Commission budget.
  The OSCE region is of vital interest to the United States, and this 
work that we do is critical. The Commission truly provides good value 
for the dollar, and hopefully will be provided the resources necessary 
to fulfill its legislative mandate.
  I join the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) in thanking the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) for their focus on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 612. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to provide the following amenities or personal 
     comforts in the Federal prison system--
       (1) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who are 
     segregated from the general prison population for their own 
     safety;
       (2) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through 
     whatever medium presented;
       (3) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or 
     training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or 
     other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
     equipment of any sort;
       (4) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates or 
     heating elements; or
       (5) the use or possession of any electric or electronic 
     musical instrument.
       Sec. 613. None of the funds made available in title II for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
     under the headings ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'' 
     and ``Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' may be used 
     to implement sections 603, 604, and 605 of Public Law 102-
     567: Provided, That NOAA may develop a modernization plan for 
     its fisheries research vessels that takes fully into account 
     opportunities for contracting for fisheries surveys.
       Sec. 614. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken 
     in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to 
     such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to 
     transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition 
     to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 615. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or 
     make available any commercially published information or 
     material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal 
     official having authority to obligate or expend such funds 
     that such information or material is sexually explicit or 
     features nudity.
       Sec. 616. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance'', not more than 90 percent of the 
     amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an 
     entity when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity 
     that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined 
     in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public 
     safety officer who retires or is separated from service due 
     to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a 
     personal injury sustained in the line of duty while 
     responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as 
     such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better 
     level of health insurance benefits at the time of retirement 
     or separation as they received while on duty.
       Sec. 617. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not 
     applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the 
     same type.
       Sec. 618. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act or any other provision of law may be used for: (1) the 
     implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the 
     implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); and (2) any system to 
     implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result 
     in the destruction of any identifying information submitted 
     by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to 
     be prohibited from owning a firearm.
       Sec. 619. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts deposited in the Fund established under 42 U.S.C. 
     10601 in fiscal year 2000 in excess of $575,000,000 shall not 
     be available for obligation until October 1, 2001.
       Sec. 620. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of 
     students who participate in programs for which financial 
     assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or 
     legal guardians of such students.
       Sec. 621. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be available for the purpose of granting either immigrant or 
     nonimmigrant visas, or both, consistent with the Secretary's 
     determination under section 243(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or 
     residents of countries that the Attorney General has 
     determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of 
     citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents under that 
     section.
       Sec. 622. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose 
     of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to 
     conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is 
     classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than 
     to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau 
     of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a 
     prisoner.
       Sec. 623. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third 
     Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to 
     the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to 
     article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States 
     Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant 
     to article 25 of the Protocol.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.


                 Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Olver

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

       Amendment No. 72 offered by Mr. Olver:
       On page 107, line 12, after the word ``Protocol'', insert: 
     Provided further, That any limitation imposed under this Act 
     on funds made available by this Act shall not apply to 
     activities specified in the previous proviso related to the 
     Kyoto Protocol which are otherwise authorized by law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23,

[[Page 12342]]

2000, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last week Members will remember that as we were 
debating the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies legislation, that the 
exact proviso that exists in section 107 was in that legislation, but 
attached only to the EPA title of the legislation. It serves to limit 
the use of funds that are provided by the Act within the EPA's title II 
in relation to the Kyoto Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, the proviso on page 107 is, as I say, exactly the same 
proviso that existed in the VA-HUD Act, but in this instance it is a 
general provision and so it affects every one of the titles of the 
bill.
  I am offering an amendment which is the precisely parallel amendment 
to the amendment offered adopted by this House by a vote of 314 to 108 
last week that simply makes clear that any of the activities that are 
part of that proviso, that any of those activities which are otherwise 
authorized in legislation, are not subject to the limitation that is 
proposed within the proviso.
  That I think is precisely equivalent language that we adopted by a 
vote of 314 to 108 last week. I would hope that the amendment would be 
agreed to, as it was last week, and voted last week.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike what the gentleman just said, this amendment is 
not the same as last week. This is totally different. This is a gutting 
amendment.
  Last week's amendment had to do with EPA. Now what the attempt on the 
part of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is is to cut the 
heart out of the language that is law. This is law that was passed in 
1999, and the law of last year. Seven times the President has signed 
language that is now in effect.
  What H.R. 4690 is not about, it is not about funding of research and 
development for clean power with renewable energy, or funding to 
develop new homes that are more energy-efficient, or trying to reduce 
methane emissions.
  In fact, what this amendment does is it trips through the year 2000, 
through the 1999 year, and brings us really back to a point where we 
were before we even started this language.
  Incidentally, I would tell the Members, in 1997 the Senate 
unanimously, by a vote of 95 to nothing, instructed the Clinton-Gore 
administration not to sign the Kyoto treaty. They did. The United 
States Constitution requires the advice of the Senate to all treaties, 
requires the consent of the Senate to all treaties, and balances the 
power of government between the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches.
  This is not the same as the amendment last week. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts errs when he says it is, because this reaches in and 
takes away everything that we have done. This is not a modest 
amendment, it is not minor. It is destructive, and frankly, it slaps 
the Byrd-Hagel resolution in the face. It bypasses the Constitution, 
and it is wrong for America, it is wrong for the worker, wrong for the 
laborer, wrong for industry.
  Along with a slap against the Constitution and the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution, I think we have to reject, reject strongly this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised by the argument that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is making here. The proviso 
is precisely the same proviso that was in the VA-HUD bill, and the 
amendment, as I have offered it, is precisely equivalent to the 
amendment that was offered and voted 314 to 108 last week.

                              {time}  1915

  The only difference is that the proviso as it was on the VA-HUD bill 
applied to only one title of the bill, whereas this proviso now applies 
as a general provision to every title of this bill. And, therefore, the 
only thing that has been removed from this amendment is the particular 
application to the EPA title of the bill which, of course, would not 
make any sense in a piece of legislation that deals with Commerce and 
with the State Department and with the Judiciary and with the Justice 
Department.
  So, I really do not understand where there is any difference in the 
import here. The only thing that is being done by this amendment is to 
make certain that those things otherwise authorized by law are, in 
fact, not subject to the limitation, which is precisely what was 
happening last week when we were saying that those things otherwise 
authorized by law, those activities that are part of the proviso which 
are otherwise authorized by law, were not subject to the limitation 
provision.
  So I think that the gentleman voted for the amendment last week in 
exactly that form, as did the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD 
Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), this is not a sleight-of-hand. This is not a maneuver to 
allow this President to implement anything in Kyoto. This is a 
provision that the entire executive branch, whether it is EPA, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, the State Department, 
or the Department of Commerce, will understand that the Kyoto Protocol 
has not been ratified by the Senate, it is not going to be implemented 
with this particular amendment.
  It only allows what I think all of us do on this floor, what all of 
us want this Government to do and that is simply to exchange 
information, to have some sense of understanding about human activity, 
its impact on climate change and what we can do to share with our 
constituents what is coming down the road.
  So I would urge the Members to vote for the Olver amendment. It is 
good, common, intelligent sense.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be advised the amount 
of time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 3 
minutes remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) has expired.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a strong, 
strong supporter of what I would call common sense.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Another 
effort to back-door the Kyoto treaty. The Knollenberg language that is 
in this bill is appropriate. It has been put into law year after year, 
and it says that we are not allowed to implement and spend billions of 
tax dollars implementing the Kyoto Protocol which has not been put 
before the Senate, when it has not been debated, when it is not in the 
appropriate setting.
  There is no reason for the language that is being offered. There is 
no good reason. There is no prohibition of exchange of information. 
There is no prohibition of us doing the normal things that our 
environmental agencies do from country to country. This creates a 
loophole that one could drive a Mack truck through. This 
administration, year after year, has budgeted billions of dollars to 
sell their theories, to sell the American public on this concept.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not what this is all about. Solemn science 
should rule and we should have a scientific debate. Most of America is 
concerned about this proposal that is before us right now. The people 
that create the

[[Page 12343]]

jobs in this country realize that the Kyoto Protocol, as implemented by 
the back door as the Gore administration wants to do, will take jobs 
out of this country and put them into Third World countries faster than 
anything that has been done.
  The Kyoto Protocol, as was mentioned the other day, is a horrible 
idea. It is a horrible concept. It leaves the Third World countries out 
and will have our businesses buying credits from them so they can 
continue to process and manufacture in this country. It makes no sense 
and we must not let this administration implement it in the back door.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
granted an additional 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how 
much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and prior to this request, the time of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) had expired.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) contends 
that this is just again a very modest thing, a very moderate move, 
minor move. It is a gut-wrenching, cut-the-heart of the language that 
we have worked so hard to put in place. The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) says that we are not going to implement the Kyoto 
Protocol. My colleagues must know that there are 24 instances on this 
sheet of paper where the State Department is implementing the Kyoto 
Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are trying to do is say do not break the law. If 
it is authorized, do it. If it is not authorized, do not.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and I have talked about 
this. But, frankly, the gentleman has crossed the line in terms of 
transgression. What he is doing is deceptive, disingenuous and it is 
wrong. It is wrong for this country.
  Very honestly, if the gentleman thinks that he can change the 
language here, he can change it again on the next bill and the next 
bill, and pretty soon, by water torture, drip by drip, we have a bill, 
we have statutory language that gets pecked away, destroyed so that the 
administration, with the gentleman's leadership pushing it, can 
implement the Kyoto Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, I say again, this is not good for America, it is not 
good for the laborer, for the farmer, it is not good for industry. And, 
in fact, as has already been heard, it will jack up the price of a 
thing called gasoline 65 or 70 cents a gallon if we implement it. I 
suggest that we stop implementation. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Olver amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the amendment by Mr. Olver 
regarding the Kyoto Protocol cannot, under the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Commerce, 
Justice, State, Appropriations bill, H.R. 4690, lest it be subject to a 
point of order.
  The offerer of this amendment admits that it shall not go beyond a 
recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has 
existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on 
unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto 
Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the acknowledgement of 
Administration's plea for clarification. The whole nation deserves to 
hear the plea of this Administration in the words of the coordiantor of 
all environmental policy for this administration, George Frampton, in 
his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. 
On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before this 
appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue 
here, my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of 
the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the 
continuation of this uncertainty created next year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the 
Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed 
Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his focus on the activities 
of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized.
  The offerer of this amendment admits that it shall be ready to be 
fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President 
Clinton in six current appropriations laws.
  A few key points must be reviewed:
  First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not authorized 
and funded.
  Second, no new authority is granted.
  Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific 
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or 
initiative.
  Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and 
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing 
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto 
Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but has decided not to submit this 
treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
  The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while 
exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, 
from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The 
Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous 
support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form 
of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and 
on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of 
the United States.
  We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies 
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to 
Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, 
Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to 
avoid constitutional due process.
  Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would 
send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we 
could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy 
future.
  During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not 
been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to 
extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. 
The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American 
public the real price tag of this policy.
  A balanced public debate will be requried because there is much to be 
learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented 
curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt.
  Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to 
elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the 
Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate.
  I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA 
understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress 
to assure that backdroor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not 
occur.
  In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what 
activities are and are not authorized.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute for each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         TITLE VII--RESCISSION

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Maritime Administration


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 104-
     208, $7,644,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill

[[Page 12344]]

through page 107, line 21, be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                        TITLE VIII--LIMITATIONS

       Sec. 801. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Federal Communications Commission'', not more than 
     $640,000 shall be available for the Office of Media Relations 
     of the Federal Communications Commission.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that I have a very simple 
amendment, and I will not take the full amount of time for this.
  When we passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996, the whole idea of 
the act was to deregulate the telecommunications industry. At that time 
it was heralded as a great event. We had not deregulated the 
Telecommunications industry since 1934. So when we finally deregulated, 
all of us thought that this would possibly reduce government because of 
deregulation.
  Instead of reducing government, the FCC which monitors and overlooks 
the telecommunications revolution, expanded quite dramatically. And 
they obviously will claim they need additional staff, but I contend 
that with all these mergers and all of this ever-changing landscape, we 
have to ask do they need 2,000 full-time equivalent employees at the 
FCC? I believe that in some places they have the necessary employees, 
but one area I am particularly concerned about, is in the media 
relations department. Do they need almost 20 people to do media 
relations? To make press clips? To send out press releases and to sell 
the FCC?
  Mr. Chairman, this is a government agency. This is not The Washington 
Post. This is not the Lockheed-Martin Corporation. It is just an 
independent government agency, yet they have almost 20 people to do 
media relations. What is the need for an agency to be able to carry out 
a media campaign of public relations? This is in addition to the press 
operations the FCC bureau office employs already. That is right. The 
seven bureau offices have their own press contacts and the five 
Commissioners all have their own press contacts.
  So let us take a look at this chart. When we look at this chart and 
see all the difference departments in the FCC that make up this 2,000 
employees agency and we relate that, each of the Commissioners have 
their own press contacts and each of the bureaus have their own person 
to deal with media. We have a right to ask. And then we come over to 
this box, the Office of Media Relations, which is over there, and we 
say to ourselves: What do they do and how big are they?
  Mr. Chairman, they are responsible for informing the press and the 
public about the FCC's actions, facilitating public participation, 
issuing news releases, public notices and other information material. 
That sounds pretty good. There are 17 people in that office.
  Now, I would like if I could to take this chart down and show what 
makes up that media relations department. First of all the American 
taxpayer is paying four people an average salary of $77,349, another 
four people at $98,743, and one person is making almost $131,000 a 
year. So if you look back up here and see 17 of these different persons 
that make up this media relations, we will understand that the 
composite group of these 17 people are making a great deal of money.
  In fact, the total of the salaries in this office alone is over 
$1,100,000. I suggest if one is a media person on the Hill, they could 
probably apply to the FCC and make a lot more money than they are 
making in their present job, frantically working until midnight like 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the FCC from appropriating more 
than $640,000, instead of $1,100,000, for the Office of Media 
Relations. I need to remind the Chairman of the FCC that employees of 
the Commission are public servants. This office and others throughout 
the FCC are unelected and now are getting paid almost as much as 
Federal judges. In some cases they are paid more. The role of the 
agency is to implement and administer our Nation's telecommunications 
law, not to increase headlines.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. It is important to remind ourselves that the amendment does 
not make further cuts in the budget of the FCC. It is intended to limit 
the funds spent by the Commission on media relations.
  Many in this Chamber questioned the involvement of the FCC in our 
debate over the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. Despite the FCC's 
efforts, that bill passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 274 to 
118 back in April.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida for his work and 
this amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is one of those out and out attacks that one always wonders 
whether what was said on the floor is the actual reason or there was a 
reason behind it.

                              {time}  1930

  Let us face it, the FCC is in a lot of trouble with some people these 
days because of the work they are doing on low-power FM stations, and 
for that they are paying a big price.
  It is interesting that people who are in this profession, like 
ourselves, like myself, would get up to oppose the idea of an office of 
media relations. I mean what we do every day, the fact that we have 
allowed cameras in this Chamber, is in fact our desire to keep the 
public informed. And what we have here is an office that handles very 
delicate issues, issues that we deal with on a daily basis in this 
country, from the FCC.
  The whole notion of suggesting that the FCC generates this kind of 
information is not totally correct. The FCC and the media relations 
office also do a lot of work responding to many inquiries from Members 
of Congress, from the public in general and, yes, from the press. For 
instance, on a yearly basis, 39,600 average press calls come in seeking 
information about telecommunications issues and pending FCC cases and 
proceedings.
  Secondly, because of the work that the FCC does, and because of the 
fact that the FCC has been involved in some very serious decisions in 
the last few years, there is a need from the public to know; and the 
public is constantly asking on a weekly and a monthly basis of the FCC 
to handle more information. They brief the press and the public before 
each Monday meeting on all the issues; they also make available the 
information on the Internet and via e-mail. These are the kinds of 
things we demand of ourselves and we demand of other people.
  They, as I said, maintain and continually update the FCC Web site, on 
which all documents released by the commission are posted. The site 
receives approximately one million hits each day. One million hits. 
Now, this is not an office that sits around doing

[[Page 12345]]

nothing; and this is not an office that has to go out, as has been 
suggested here, and create information and create their jobs. The mere 
fact that they are in an agency which gives out information and which 
controls a lot of the information that goes out in this country, they 
are part of this agency and this is the work that they do.
  To stand here on the floor and just try to say, well, we have to get 
at them for some of the things they have done that we do not like, and 
we are going to start by keeping the information from coming out, that 
is just not fair and should be seen for what it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend that this is just 
intended to save money and to bring more fiscal responsibility. So 
there is no other motive here.
  I would also say to my friend that each of these bureaus here have 
their own press person. And when the commissioners send out their own 
press release, a certain person in that commissioner's office must be 
referred to as the press contact. These folks are in overload with 
personnel in the press department.
  I submit that we can take this office, which spends $1,100,000 and 
bring it down to $640,000.00 and still be better off. Because we do not 
need to be paying so many people $80,000. There are four of them making 
almost $80,000 a year. I suggest my colleague's my own press secretary 
is not making $80,000 a year, and I submit that this office does not 
need this much either.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
has expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Now that the gentleman from Florida has gotten me in trouble with my 
press secretary, I must say that I still think that this is an unfair 
attack. It is interesting that the gentleman mentions my press 
secretary, because at this very moment each one of us that has spoken 
on the floor today has been getting countless phone calls from the 
media and from the public asking for information as to what we said, 
what we discussed, why we said it, and what was the issue.
  The FCC handles as important issues as we do and they get the same 
information requests, and they get the same desire from the public to 
know.
  So what I am saying to my good friend is I know that the gentleman 
has some problems with the FCC, but he should find another area to 
attack and not attack the media relations. Because if the gentleman 
succeeds, I assure my colleague that a year from now he will be back on 
the floor complaining that he does not get enough information from the 
FCC.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will not be on the House floor next year 
if the gentleman votes for my amendment. Will the gentleman agree to 
that?
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that the 
gentleman will not be on the House floor next year, but it has nothing 
to do with the amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I have issued a 
challenge to the gentleman.
  Mr. SERRANO. I am sorry, I cannot vote for the gentleman's amendment 
this year or next year.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stearns 
amendment. Far too often, Federal agencies simply forget whom they are 
here to serve--the people.
  The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Legislative and 
Intergovernmental Affairs employs approximately 13 people at a cost of 
almost $950,000 dollars to answer requests and inquiries and they do a 
poor job.
  Mr. Chairman, why does it take 17 people in the Office of Media 
Relations to inform the press and the public of the FCC's actions--at a 
cost to the taxpayer of over $1 million dollars?
  Why does it take 13 people from the Office of Legislative and 
Intergovernmental Affairs to respond to 535 Senators and Members of 
Congress when I have 6 people on my staff to answer the inquiries from 
600,000 of my constituents?
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you one example of a situation I 
encountered with the Federal Communications Commission's poor record of 
``customer service.''
  In November of 1999, I wrote to the Chairman of the FCC seeking a 
response to an issue hundreds of my constituents had written to me 
about.
  Despite several follow-up letters to Chairman Kennard, I had to send 
yet another letter in April and had my office place several telephone 
calls inquiring to the status of the response to my inquiry--now five 
months old.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that it would take the Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission almost five months to respond to my 
constituents. This agency has absolutely no accountability to the 
taxpayers! It is clear how much waste is taking place at this agency.
  Mr. Chairman, it is about time for the Federal Communications 
Commission to be responsible to the people they serve. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Mc Carthy of Missouri

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

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Ms. McCarthy of Missouri:
       Add at the end of the bill, before the short title, the 
     following:

  TITLE VIII--PROPERTY AND SERVICES DONATIONS TO THE BUREAU OF PRISONS


        property and services donations to the bureau of prisons

       Sec. 801. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons may accept 
     donated property and services relating to the operation of 
     the Prison Card Program from a not-for-profit entity which 
     has operated such program in the past, despite the fact such 
     not-for-profit entity furnishes services under contract to 
     the Bureau relating to the operation of prerelease services, 
     halfway houses, or other custodial facilities.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I offer this amendment which adds clarifying language 
to the bill. This amendment is noncontroversial and enjoys bipartisan 
and bicameral support.
  This amendment allows the Department of Justice to accept a donation 
of greeting cards from the Salvation Army. The Department of Justice 
requested this language to continue a very successful prison card 
program which has operated successfully for over 25 years.
  Each year, as a part of their rehabilitation, millions of cards are 
distributed to help prisoners keep in touch with their families and 
friends, thus keeping them connected with society and, where possible, 
easing their return and acclimation to society upon release.
  From a public policy standpoint, this program is hailed as very 
successful by the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, prison 
administrators, majority and minority communities, faith-based 
organizations, and law enforcement officials. Again, this is a 
noncontroversial and widely supported program, and I urge the adoption 
of my amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to the amendment.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
accepting my amendment.

[[Page 12346]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to claim time in 
opposition?
  Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 23.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

               TITLE __ -- ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to enforce, implement, 
     or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated 
     March 17, 2000, between Smith & Wesson and the Department of 
     the Treasury (among other parties).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and a Member opposed 
will each control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit 
the Department of Justice from using taxpayers' dollars to enforce the 
provisions of a settlement agreement between Smith & Wesson, the 
Treasury Department, and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  The Department of Justice would be the primary agency that would 
bring suit to enforce any disputes that arise as a result of the 
agreement. Therefore, this amendment would simply prohibit the 
Department of Justice from suing Smith & Wesson for HUD or Treasury to 
enforce the contested provisions of this agreement.
  Let me share with my colleagues what I am trying to accomplish with 
this amendment. It is quite simple. Article 1, section 1 of the 
Constitution states, and I quote: ``All legislative powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''
  In my hand I hold 22 pages of legislation. This legislation was not 
deliberated in these grand Chambers. This legislation was not debated 
among the distinguished Members of this body. This legislation was 
formed by lawyers of the executive branch, bringing the full force and 
weight of the United States Government upon one firearms manufacturer.
  What is our response? If we do nothing and allow the executive branch 
to intrude upon our legislative authority, who is next? I do not 
believe the founders of this great Nation would want us to hand over 
our constitutional authority to Andrew Cuomo or Janet Reno. In fact, 
our oath of office requires us to stand up and say to the executive 
branch, ``You will not bypass us and bring this reign of legislation 
through litigation terror upon the American people.''
  Now, let me share with my colleagues what these 22 pages of 
legislation include. Now, keep in mind that in the agreement Smith & 
Wesson agrees to bind all those dealers who wish to sell Smith & Wesson 
products to the restrictions in the agreement. In other words, Smith & 
Wesson dealers must include the following restrictions on all firearms 
sales regardless of make. This includes Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, 
Colt, and so on.
  In order to continue selling Smith & Wesson products, dealers must 
agree to, one, impose a 14-day waiting period on any purchaser who 
wants to buy more than one handgun. Again, all makes. Did Congress 
authorize such a restriction?
  Two, transfer firearms only to individuals who have passed a 
certified safety examination or training course. Once again, all makes. 
Did Congress authorize this restriction?
  Three, the agreement authorizes the BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, to sit on an oversight commission to enforce 
provisions of the coerced agreement. When did Congress authorize the 
BATF to enforce private civil settlement agreements?
  Four, requires the BATF or an agreed-upon proofing entity to test 
firearms. Did we do this in this Chamber?
  Five, the agreement mandates that Smith & Wesson commit 2 percent of 
their revenues to develop authorized user technology and within 36 
months, 3 years, to incorporate this technology in all new firearm 
designs. It appears HUD likes unfunded mandates. Did Congress authorize 
this unfunded mandate?
  I could go on and on, but time prevents me from doing so. I have been 
accused of trying to destroy Smith & Wesson in past legislative 
efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in April, 
Smith & Wesson published on their Web page a clarification of their 
interpretation of their agreement with Treasury and HUD. But the 
Clinton administration was not happy at all with that interpretation 
found on their Web site, and I quote from the New York Times of April 
14:
  ``A Clinton administration official hinted yesterday,'' April 13, 
``that the matter might end up in court if Smith & Wesson tried to back 
away from a deal it had signed. `The agreement is a contract,' said an 
administration official involved in the deal. `It says what it says. It 
will be implemented.' ''
  Now, tell me, who is trying to destroy Smith & Wesson? I suppose 
former Labor Secretary Robert Reich was prophetic in his statement in 
USA Today when he said in February 1999: ``The era of big government 
may be over, but the era of regulation through litigation has just 
begun.''
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask, are we a Nation of laws or a 
Nation of lawsuits? Support my amendment and stop Treasury and HUD from 
using the Department of Justice to enforce their legislation, again, 
not this body's legislation, but Treasury and HUD's legislation through 
litigation, and return that legislative power to where the Constitution 
requires it, the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really troubled by this amendment because it wants 
to destroy an agreement which is for the good of the American people 
and, in fact, for the good of the gun manufacturing industry.
  On the safety front, Smith & Wesson agreed to measures like internal 
safety locks, smart gun technology, child safety trigger resistance, 
chamber load indicators, and many other provisions that will cut down 
on accidental shootings and make guns less attractive to criminals.
  What Smith & Wesson did was, in fact, show for the first time in a 
very significant way that this issue can be taken seriously as a 
manufacturer; that they do not have to run away from their 
responsibilities; that, yes, they can stay in business and still do the 
right thing by the American people and American children. For that 
reason, I think that opposing the implementation of the agreement at 
this point is a vote for less safety and less responsible distribution. 
To kill the implementation of the agreement sends a strong signal to 
the rest of the gun industry that they should just keep resisting 
common sense reform while communities throughout America pay the price.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply to once again return the 
legislative authority to Congress. Congress has in the past dealt with 
issues that

[[Page 12347]]

the gentleman has discussed; and, in fact, it has passed legislation 
dealing with trigger locks, with waiting-day periods for, as past 
amendments dealing with that legislation dealing with the amount of 
time that must be used for background checks at gun shows where an 
individual is not a Federal firearms licensed dealer but is, in fact, a 
private seller.
  Congress has already spoken on those issues. But the administration 
does not want that discussion to be heard, does not want that 
discussion to be the legislative process. It wants to legislate through 
litigation. It wants to legislate through the coercive action of HUD, 
of the BATF and, in this particular case, the Justice Department.
  I would say that the discussion about what this is going to do for 
our children I think is made moot, is defied by the simple facts of our 
society today. And what we are led to believe that discussion is that 
this agreement will make firearms safer, will make the streets safer 
for our children really flies in the face of reality.
  And that is, if we take the tragic story earlier this year of a 6-
year-old boy who went to school and killed his classmate, what we are 
led to believe by the opponents of this amendment, the proponents of 
legislation through litigation through the executive branch, is this, 
that when that little boy would take the gun that his father or those 
in the crack house where he was staying had stolen, that he would have 
been met on the way to school with that .32 caliber automatic firearm 
and, in a drug-induced stupor, his father would have said, Son, before 
you go to school with that firearm that we stole and you break six, 
eight, ten, a dozen Federal firearms laws by doing it, what you and I 
need to do is we need to go down and have a certified training course 
for that gun, for the use of that firearm, for the illegal use of that 
firearm.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not going to happen, obviously. But discussion 
earlier last week, I think, does define what is trying to be done in 
this agreement; and that is a statement that was made by one of our 
colleagues that said, quote, this amendment and the one that preceded 
it earlier regarding the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition are 
really unnecessary and they fly in the face of incremental and 
reasonable and common sense attempts to protect our children from guns.
  Obviously, that little 6-year-old girl that was killed was not 
secured from violence and this agreement and everything affiliated 
would not have stopped that from happening. But what is taking place is 
incremental gun control by actions of the executive branch implemented 
not only on dealers who deal in Smith & Wesson firearms but on every 
firearm that goes through their inventory.
  This is back-door gun control through coercion and through threat of 
litigation, and this Congress should not allow that to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that a similar amendment by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) was defeated on the VA-HUD 
bill. Secondly, the gentleman keeps mentioning the Department of 
Justice. The Department of Justice is not a party to this agreement, as 
is the Treasury Department.
  Lastly, just to remind everyone, this is Smith & Wesson trying to do 
the right thing; and to be attacked for trying to do the right thing 
and to say they have been coerced is totally unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, last week my colleague the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) attempted to turn back the 
clock on gun safety. He failed and the House rejected his amendment. We 
should defeat this amendment once again.
  Today he tries again. The bill has changed, but the amendment is the 
same. Instead of HUD, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
prevents the Department of Justice from expending any money relating to 
HUD-Smith & Wesson agreement.
  Secretary Cuomo and more than 10 of the Nation's mayors successfully 
negotiated an agreement with the gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, in 
March. This agreement has been embraced by more than 411 communities 
across the Nation from Los Angeles to Long Island, New York. The 
agreement will make our communities safer, and we should allow it to 
continue without Congressional tampering.
  His amendment will prevent the Department of Justice from expending 
any funds related to its agreement with Smith & Wesson. Now, this is 
extremely important.
  What does the agreement do? This is not gun control. This is called 
gun safety where a manufacturer is coming before us and doing the right 
thing to try to make our citizens and our children safer.
  Guns will have safety locks. Smart technology, this is the guns that 
can be for people in the house, whether it is one person or two people, 
that the gun can be fitted to that person and only those two people 
would be able to use that gun. This is extremely smart. Smith & Wesson 
has agreed to go forward with this. This is gun safety, not gun 
control.
  Guns cannot be marketed to children. What can we even say about that? 
Guns should not be marketed to children, anyhow.
  Background checks performed on all sales. We know that when we do 
background checks and weed out those criminals that are trying to buy 
their guns, that that can cut down on gun violence in this country.
  Gun stores must secure guns and ammunition to prevent their theft. 
What is wrong with that? This way we cannot have someone breaking into 
a store and stealing guns and ammunition. Law enforcement has a stake 
in this agreement because it reduces gun violence, reduces gun 
accidents, and it keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals. And 
that is, basically, all Smith & Wesson is trying to do with this 
agreement.
  Let me say that this also leads us down a very slippery slope. What 
if a drug manufacturer reaches an agreement with the Department of 
Veterans' Affairs to provide reasonable priced prescription drugs for 
our veterans? Are we going to strike this down also?
  The Congress has a legitimate right to examine this agreement and 
others. It is shameful to defund the Smith & Wesson agreement without 
adequate review. We constantly hear the Congress should not meddle in 
the affairs of our cities and our counties. This amendment is meddling. 
It says local communities cannot work with the Federal Government to 
reduce gun violence.
  This amendment says HUD should not keep its word. It says that it is 
trivial that 12 children are killed every day by gun violence.
  It was mentioned by my colleague that the 8-year-old that shot the 6-
year-old girl that a child safety lock would not have prevented this. 
Well, most likely, it probably would not have. But that does not mean 
that we should not go forward in trying to have gun safety legislation 
here.
  What might have happened was, if that person bought the gun 
illegally, maybe if we had stricter laws as far as background checks go 
that person would not have been able to buy the gun if he did buy it on 
the black market.
  I think that we should honor our agreement with Smith & Wesson. It is 
good business sense for them; and, hopefully, other gun manufacturers 
will follow suit with them.
  I have to say, when a private individual or company sues the Federal 
Government and settles, then Congress makes sure that the settlement is 
upheld. The same standard applies to the HUD-Smith & Wesson agreement. 
Let this agreement stand as it is.
  Mr. Chairman, guns and children do not mix. The Million Mom March 
showed us that hundreds of thousands of Americans can unite to stop gun 
violence in this country. The gun lobby does not control this House. 
We, the

[[Page 12348]]

citizens that work here representing the people back home, are the ones 
that are supposed to fight for the issues that we care so much about.
  I have to say that every little thing that we try to do to reduce gun 
violence in this country we seem to be stopped. I think it is time that 
we all work together. This is gun safety. It is not gun control. Gun 
control to me is when we try to take away the right of someone owning a 
gun. We are not doing that. I do not know of any Member that is trying 
to do that. This is good, common sense gun safety legislation. We 
defeated this amendment last week. We should again defeat this 
amendment today.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would address some points that the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy) made, and the first is the discussion of the 
slippery slope.
  She brings up a good point about reasonable cause for the Veterans' 
Administration for drugs from a particular drug company. No one could 
be opposed to that. But the analogy is not particularly complete in 
that, if one drug company would make that agreement with the Veterans' 
Administration, if the same philosophy would govern as does with the 
Smith & Wesson agreement, then every pharmacist that supplies that one 
drug would have to sell a similar drug or other drugs at a price 
dictated by the first drug company and the Veterans' Administration.
  That is what this agreement does. It makes not only the sale of Smith 
& Wesson firearms applicable to the provisions of this agreement, but 
this makes other non-signatory gun manufacturers open to this, as well.
  Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, 
said that the Department of Justice is not a party in this lawsuit, and 
he is absolutely correct. But, however, it would be the Department of 
Justice, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) pointed out, 
that would be the instrument that would bring the suit to Federal court 
on the part of HUD and the Treasury. So he is right. But this amendment 
is still necessary because it will be Justice that brings this to play.
  Now, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is right. This 
agreement would not have done anything to stop the tragedy nor to stop 
most tragedies dealing with violence against children, violent crimes. 
Because that is why we call them crimes. When they break the law, they 
commit a crime. And that is what happened in the first case with the 
incident that I discussed earlier. The gun was not purchased on the 
black market.
  Not many black market salesmen have guns that do background checks in 
the first place. But, secondly, even if this one particular black 
market gun dealer that my colleague points out would have done a 
background check, it would not have applied because it was stolen and 
it was reported as such, so this agreement would not have affected that 
particular situation at any point.
  Now, I would simply say that this is an agreement that is going to be 
carried out in a court of law, according to what has already been 
stated in The New York Times, if Smith & Wesson goes forward with their 
interpretation of the agreement. The Department of Justice would be the 
one to bring suit. And, so, if my colleague feels that Smith & Wesson 
has tried to do the right thing in this agreement, then she must vote 
for my amendment because she does not, in her own words, want to 
penalize Smith & Wesson by the Justice Department doing what they have 
already said they are going to do, and that is sue Smith & Wesson if 
Smith & Wesson does not do exactly what the Department of Justice, not 
Congress, says they should do in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor.
  There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and 
rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the 
second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that 
the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So 
I congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. 
The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. 
Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws 
without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw 
the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the 
three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial 
branch, and the legislative branch.
  It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and 
the judicial branch for interpreting them, period.
  A serious act of misconduct on the administration occurred when the 
Smith & Wesson agreement was settled. The executive branch acted as the 
legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of 
litigation. The egregious agreement will require all authorized Smith & 
Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days 
regardless of make, require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to 
require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of 
any firearm, mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight 
commission created by the settlement agreement, and does not allow 
unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present.
  It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority 
given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell 
their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This 
forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops 
before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they 
choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.
  The BATF, which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun 
owners, will play an integral part on the oversight commission of gun 
owners by the agreement.
  The BATF will require all employees of dealers to attend annual 
training courses. In these training courses, the BATF gives the final 
say as to what can be taught and what will be excluded. Each employee 
must also complete an examination of which its contents will be closely 
reviewed by the oversight commission and make its own changes as it 
sees fit. In essence, they are acting as the ``thought-control'' 
police. This sounds very Orwellian to me and far from what Patrick 
Henry had in mind when he said, ``The great objective is that every man 
be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.''
  Let us not forget past calamities against U.S. citizens from over 
zealous federal agents in trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. 
Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies 
and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress. 
Members of the House, you must remember the oath that you swore to 
uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer. By what authority 
does the administration set up this new commission, what check will be 
placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect 
all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in 
these changes. Why should we hand over our authority to another branch 
of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our 
citizens?
  These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and 
Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear 
that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-
second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their 
policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their 
legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no 
business--and have no authority--to mandate how a company runs its 
business.
  Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. 
Please stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and 
vote for the Hostettler Amendment and support H.R. 2655, the Separation 
of Powers Restoration Act.
  I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope 
that we can pass this overwhelmingly.

[[Page 12349]]



                              {time}  2000

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The more I hear the gentleman speak about his amendment and the more 
I hear people support the amendment, I cannot believe what I am 
hearing. It is like we are going crazy in this Chamber. Here we have 
for the first time a major manufacturer of guns in this country not 
saying gun control, not saying stop the sale of guns but saying, yes, 
you were right all along, I can make safety locks; I can bring out 
smart gun technology; I can make my guns child safety-trigger 
resistant; I can have chamber load indicators; I can do a lot of things 
that will make this situation a safer one for people who should not be 
either using guns or be near a gun in any way. In no way, shape or form 
does Smith & Wesson want to put themselves out of business by saying 
gun control.
  This is a perfect thing to agree on. In fact, if one is for the use 
of guns in this country, they should be for this. So the more I listen 
to these arguments I say I do not know, maybe I am listening to another 
Chamber somewhere else.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  I listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) talk about a lack 
of accountability that inspired the American Revolution. Well, I think 
there is a revolution today in this country of thinking about how we 
deal with gun violence, and the lack of accountability today is on the 
floor of this Chamber where the American public overwhelmingly supports 
simple, common sense approaches to reduced gun violence but this 
Chamber is still in the thralls of apologists for gun violence and 
refuses to do what the American public would support.
  It is clear, I hope, from my discussion last week, that it is wrong 
for this Congress to make it hard for a 2-year-old to open a bottle of 
aspirin but not make it hard for that 2-year-old to shoot his baby 
sister.
  My point, which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) somehow 
confused with regulation of water pistols when they purchase it, was 
instead that this Congress has made it clear that there are certain 
core product safety standards which we are afraid to extend to real 
guns because of the threat of the NRA.
  This legislation before us today has two nonsensical approaches. One, 
it undercuts our efforts to have a cooperative effort with the private 
sector in solving problems of gun violence and it would be read to 
prevent the Department of Justice conceivably from even discussing the 
Smith & Wesson agreement, clearly an illogical result. They are not a 
party to the legislation. It is not appropriate to be dealing with 
their budget, but it is clear that their job is to advise government 
agencies on the legal ramifications of what they enter into. That is 
absolutely dead wrong that somehow we would undercut their ability to 
do their job.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out 
a very important point, and that is that we should be doing what the 
American people want. The Framers of the Constitution had that very 
same thing in mind when they said that all legislative powers shall be 
vested in a Congress; all policymaking power shall be given to a 
Congress. They did not give that power to make policy to the executive 
branch. They did not give it to the judicial branch. Here of late, the 
Supreme Court has forgotten that fact.
  They did not give it to bureaucrats, either. They gave it to the 
legislative branch, being the Congress. So by doing this amendment, we 
are doing exactly what the American people want. A vote later will 
determine that on this particular bill.
  Let me just remind my colleague from New York, the ranking member, 
that if he in fact believes that Smith & Wesson is doing the right 
thing by entering this agreement, and he does not want harm to come to 
Smith & Wesson, he should support my amendment because the Department 
of Justice is going to be the arm of the Federal Government that is 
going to be bringing this suit to court if Smith & Wesson goes against 
what the Department of Justice or HUD, I should say, or BATF does. It 
will be them. If one votes for this amendment, they will be saying 
hooray to Smith & Wesson; but if they do not, if they do not, then they 
will be saying that Smith & Wesson should be penalized for entering 
this agreement and not doing what the executive branch and the 
bureaucrats, that none of the employees of Smith & Wesson ever voted 
for, they will be doing what they want them to do and not according to 
what Smith & Wesson would have them to do.
  I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for yielding me this time.
  For any of the viewers that are tuned in and listening to this 
debate, maybe we should pull back and clear the air for a moment and 
explain to them what this is about, kind of in an unedited way.
  This is an amendment that is directed at removing from the books an 
agreement that Smith & Wesson, gun manufacturer in the United States of 
America, in my view, stepped up to home plate and struck an agreement, 
struck an agreement. Now, any major business, corporation in this 
country, I do not think, steps up to home plate to put themselves out 
of business. So, number one, this does not hurt their business, but 
what it is directed toward is protecting children.
  I think that is very smart of Smith & Wesson because it is a very 
effective marketing tool.
  Now, this marketing tool of this amendment now comes along and cloaks 
itself in the Constitution that no Federal agency should be able to 
enter into an agreement such as this; and so, therefore, 
constitutionally we need this amendment to undo this agreement.
  I think that that is hogwash, I have to say. All of the mothers and 
fathers that came to Washington, D.C., to march, what were they saying? 
They were saying that in this country we have had enough. We do not 
want to bury our own children. Guns are dangerous; and in the hands of 
little ones, fatalities happen over and over and over again. So let us 
not dress ourselves up in a constitutional issue here. Let us not try 
to make ourselves look good. I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is a bad one. It is not what the American people want, and people 
should vote it down.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, again let us go through on 
what this amendment does. It will take away what Smith & Wesson, as far 
as I am concerned and we heard from my colleague from California, on 
good business sense. We see unfortunately in this country over 100,000 
injuries. Those are the people that have been injured by guns but have 
not died. Across this country, billions of dollars are spent every 
single year for the health care services. We all end up paying for 
that. What Smith & Wesson is saying is they are going to work on 
technology, technology to make guns safer. Guns that are in 51 percent 
of the homes today, they will be a safer product.
  We strive here constantly on many manufacturers to have them come up 
with safer products. We see it with cars. We see it with our 
medications and bottles. We have done that for years and years and 
years. We see different manufacturers coming up with new, safer ways to 
make our citizens safe. Well, this is what Smith & Wesson is doing.

[[Page 12350]]

  We get lost in this debate all the time when we start talking about 
the Constitution, when we start talking about upholding the 
Constitution. All of us here, when we are sworn in as Congresspeople, 
swear to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what I do. I am 
not looking or trying to take away anyone's right to own a gun. That is 
certainly not my agenda. My agenda is to try to make this country safer 
than what it is.
  We lose police officers too much in this country, and we should be 
protecting them. How are we going to do that? By having an agreement 
like Smith & Wesson where we are making sure that there are background 
checks being made so those criminals that are falling through the 
cracks are not going to get their hands on guns and use them against 
our citizens and our police officers in this country.
  Smith & Wesson has done the right thing. They have done the right 
thing. I have to be honest, if someone had told me 3 years ago that I 
would be defending a gun manufacturer, I would probably have said they 
were crazy, Mr. Chairman, but here I am. When a company does the right 
thing, they certainly should be hearing from us to say we will support 
them on this. When we have mayors across this country, when we have 
communities, over 400 communities across this Nation, two mayors from 
the district of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), saying 
they want to do their part on working to make their communities and 
their cities and certainly our States and our country safer, then we 
should be doing this.
  Last week we defended this amendment. The only difference was, it was 
in another appropriations. I am hoping that my colleagues here in this 
Congress will again stand with all of us and say Smith & Wesson is 
doing the right thing. We should stand behind them, make this a safer 
country for our citizens; certainly make it a safer place for our 
children and our police officers who are out there every single day 
risking their lives. We have to do something about trying to cut down 
how criminals get guns. Smith & Wesson has taken a step by doing that, 
with the background checks.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am here to express my opposition to the 
Hostettler amendment.
  This amendment prohibits the Department of Justice from using funds 
to implement or administer the settlement reached in March between the 
federal government and Smith & Wesson.
  Last week, during the VA/HUD Appropriations debate, Congressman 
Hostettler introduced a similar amendment to try to stop the efforts of 
the federal government to make guns safer and keep them out of the 
hands of children and criminals.
  I have to ask--what is he trying to do?
  Does he oppose safer guns? Because this agreement makes sure guns 
will have safety measures like internal safety locks, smart-gun 
technology, child-safety trigger resistance, chamber-load indicators, 
and many other provisions that will cut down on accidental shootings 
and make guns less attractive to criminals.
  Does he oppose making distribution of guns more thoughtful and 
careful? Because this agreement also closes the gun-show loophole, 
requires background checks for all sales, limits the delivery of 
multiple purchases, limits children's access to weapons, and many other 
measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
  Does he oppose saving lives? Because that is what this agreement will 
do. It also sets an example for other manufacturers to help reduce the 
awful toll of gun violence while ending litigation brought against them 
by an array of cities and counties.
  The agreement is a win-win situation--settling litigation and making 
safer guns available to the American people.
  The agreement demonstrates that manufacturers can make safer guns--
including smart guns--and take responsibility for the way their guns 
are distributed.
  A vote for Congressman Hostettler's amendment is a vote for less 
safety and less responsible distribution. It thwarts implementation of 
the agreement sends a strong signal to the rest of the gun industry 
that they should just keep resisting common-sense reform, while 
communities throughout America pay the price.
  I urge every one of your to vote against the ill-conceived Hostettler 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in 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. 33 by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), amendment No. 72 by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), amendment No. 23 by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 33 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) 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 86, 
noes 312, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                                AYES--86

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Toomey
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden

[[Page 12351]]


     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Carson
     Cook
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Morella
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Talent
     Towns
     Vento
     Waxman
     Whitfield

                              {time}  2031

  Mr. SAWYER and Mr. DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan and Mr. LUTHER 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 time within which a 
vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the 
Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Olver

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 72 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) 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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 181, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--181

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Carson
     Cook
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Morella
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Talent
     Towns
     Vento
     Waxman
     Whitfield

                              {time}  2041

  Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page 12352]]


  Mr. REGULA and Mr. ROEMER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent today, Monday, 
June 26, 2000, and as a result, missed rollcall votes 322 and 323. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 322 and 
``yes'' on rollcall vote 323.


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 201, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--196

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Archer
     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Cook
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Morella
     Ney
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Talent
     Towns
     Vento
     Waxman
     Whitfield

                              {time}  2050

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


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidable detained in my 
Congressional District earlier today and was unable to vote on several 
amendments to H.R. 4690.
  On the Sanford amendment, rollcall 322, I would have voted ``no.''
  On the Olver amendment, rollcall 323, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On the Hostettler amendment, rollcall 324, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding to me.
  I would like to voice my concern over the state of Federal judicial 
compensation. I believe that judges' salaries are falling below the 
minimum levels that are needed, not only in the interests of fairness, 
but also to ensure the continued quality of the Federal judiciary.
  Over the past 8 years, Federal judges have experienced a 13 percent 
decline in the real value of their salaries. At the same time, their 
workload has remained at high levels. Salaries of Federal judges have 
not just lagged behind the inflation indices.
  As a result, judges' salaries no longer bear a reasonable 
relationship to that of the pool of lawyers from whom candidates for 
judgeships should be drawn. It has been widely reported that the first-
year associates in law firms in metropolitan areas throughout the 
country are now earning $125,000 a year. It is therefore not surprising 
that even second- and third-year associates at most large law firms 
would have to take a pay cut, a pay cut to accept an appointment to the 
Federal bench.
  Public sector salaries may even be more relevant. The general counsel 
of the University of California receives a salary in excess of $250,000 
annually, which is substantially greater than the pay of the Chief 
Justice of the United States.
  The district attorneys of Los Angeles, for example, are paid 
$185,000. All of these salaries far exceed the salary of the United 
States Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, which are 
currently less than $182,000 and $174,000, respectively.
  Additionally, a U.S. District Judge salary is currently only 
$141,300. Increasingly, judges are choosing not to

[[Page 12353]]

make the financial sacrifice to remain on the Federal bench. As a 
result, our Federal judiciary is losing some of its most capable and 
dedicated men and women. Since January, 1993, 40 Article III judges, 
judges whose positions are delegated in Article III of the U.S. 
Constitution and serve lifetime appointments subject to Senate 
confirmation, have resigned or retired from the Federal bench. Many of 
these judges have retired to private practice.
  The departure of experienced, seasoned judges undermines the notion 
of lifetime service and weakens our judicial system. If the issue of 
adequate judicial salaries is not soon addressed, I believe there is a 
real risk that the quality of the Federal judiciary, a matter of great 
and justified pride, will be compromised.
  The President of the United States' salary goes up to $400,000 next 
year. Is it not about time the Supreme Court Justices's salaries go up, 
too?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. This 
is an issue that the Judiciary has been struggling with for a number of 
years. It gets worse. It is becoming more widespread. As the number of 
agencies that require professional expertise grows, we hear the same 
problem in connection with the SEC, FCC, the FBI, all agencies that 
hire lawyers and professional experts.
  We have to compete with the private sector, but we do not have the 
resources to match those salaries dollar for dollar, as the gentleman 
has so adequately pointed out. So we will work with the gentleman on 
this issue as we work through the process, hoping we can find some 
solution.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I should have asked for the gavel, because I could not 
believe my ears. My understanding is that the previous gentleman was 
inquiring about the inadequacy of the pay of Federal judges. I remember 
a number of years ago when the same gentleman was very active in seeing 
to it that this House did not provide cost-of-living increases for its 
own employees.
  I would simply say, I admire the gentleman's solicitude for people 
who are already making six figures, but frankly, I would like to see 
the same solicitude for the legislative branch of government, and by 
that, I specifically am thinking of the people who work for us. I am 
not talking about Members, I am talking about our staffs, the people 
who make us look a lot better than we are.
  I find it ironic that a gentleman who was very active in denying us 
that opportunity to compensate our own employees with a cost-of-living 
increase a number of years ago is now very concerned about the pay of 
the highest-paid judges in this country.
  I have nothing against adequate judicial salaries, but I also think 
we have a problem when the average length of stay for a young 
congressional staffer on the Hill is less than 3 years, and I think 
there is a serious problem when the House of Representatives on average 
pays its top legislative staffers $15,000 to $25,000 less on average 
than the United States Senate does. I have forgotten whether it is 
$15,000 or $25,000, so I will supply the exact number for the Record.

                              {time}  2100

  But I just want to say that I share the gentleman's concern about 
adequate reimbursement for judges. I would welcome his concern about 
adequate salaries for the young people in this institution who work 
just as hard as Federal judges for about one-fifth the pay.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me. The gentleman has a very good memory. That was 10 years 
ago that I had that amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I remember. My motto is: ``Forgive and 
remember.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the gentleman remembers 
that like it was yesterday, because it did occur a decade ago. At that 
point the salaries that were provided the staff were going up quite 
substantially and was well above inflation. And since we have had the 
years go on for the last 10 years, we have provided inflationary 
increases for the staff.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply say the 
fact is those salaries are a whole lot less than every other branch of 
government. They still are. And it seems to me that one of the ways for 
people to judge Members of Congress is to judge them by whether or not 
they deal with their staffs the way they would like to be dealt with 
themselves.
  And, certainly, it seems to me that the country would be well served 
if we also had a greater ability to retain congressional employees of 
more experience so that we are not being advised by people who on 
average have been here less than 3 years.


          Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

           TITLE VIII--LEGAL AMNESTY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

       Sec. 801. (a) Section 249 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``1972'' and 
     inserting ``1986''; and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``1972;'' and inserting 
     ``1986;''.
       (b) The table of sections for such Act is amended in the 
     item relating to section 249 by striking ``1972'' and 
     inserting ``1986''.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and a Member 
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I did not have to rise to the floor on this 
issue, because I know if my colleagues understood this issue 
completely, they would immediately move to waive the point of order and 
allow us to proceed to vote on this and pass this amendment.
  In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act authorized the 
legalization of undocumented immigrants, in essence to grante late 
amnesty. This is a nation of immigrants and laws. But, unfortunately, 
the INS promulgated a rule that denied such legalization to the 
immigrants in this group who had briefly left the country to bury a 
loved one or take care of a child, or handle other matters.
  We find that these individuals now live in our country having lived 
18, 20 years, they have mortgages, car payments, and are hard-working 
individuals with young adult children now trying to seek an educational 
opportunity. But yet because of an incorrect interpretation by the INS 
of a regulation, the situation now exists that these individuals, 
hardworking, taxpaying families are not able to adjust their status and 
become citizens or apply for such.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment resolves this in a fair 
and adequate manner so much so that the AFL-CIO has offered a 
resolution in support of legal amnesty, and at the appropriate time I 
will submit their statement for inclusion in the Record.
  I offer another amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would bring an end to a 
long problem. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
authorized the legalization of undocumented immigrants who could prove 
that they had been living in the United States since January 1, 1982.
  Unfortunately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (``INS'') 
promulgated a rule that denied legalization to the immigrants in this 
group who had briefly left the country. INS then refused to accept 
applications from people who had violated this rule.
  But by the time the INS had agreed to modify the rule, the 12-month 
application period

[[Page 12354]]

had ended and hundreds of thousands of people who could have 
established eligibility for legalization had been turned away.
  This amendment would update a provision of the immigration law known 
as ``registry'' by which our government recognizes that it makes sense 
to allow long-time residents, deeply rooted immigrants who are 
contributing to our economy to remain here permanently. This amendment 
would get these immigrants out of ``legal limbo.''
  My bill H.R. 4172 ``The Legal Amnesty Restoration Act of 1999'' also 
fixes this problem, however the devastation that these families are 
facing because of our inability to seek legal status warrants our 
acting today to correct this injustice. Thank you.

          AFL-CIO'S RESOLUTION SUPPORTING IMMIGRATION AMNESTY

       The AFL-CIO proudly stands on the side of immigrant 
     workers. Throughout the history of this country, immigrants 
     have played an important role in building our nation and its 
     democratic institutions. New arrivals from every continent 
     have contributed their energy, talent, and commitment to 
     making the United States richer and stronger. Likewise, the 
     American union movement has been enriched by the 
     contributions and courage of immigrant workers. Newly 
     arriving workers continue to make indispensable contributions 
     to the strength and growth of our unions. These efforts have 
     created new unions and strengthened and revived others, 
     benefitting all workers, immigrant and native-born alike. It 
     is increasingly clear that if the United States is to have an 
     immigration system that really works, it must be 
     simultaneously orderly, responsible and fair. The policies of 
     both the AFL-CIO and our country must reflect those goals.
       The United States is a nation of laws. This means that the 
     federal government has the sovereign authority and 
     constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits on 
     immigration. It also means that our government has the 
     obligation to enact and enforce laws in ways that respect due 
     process and civil liberties, safeguard public health and 
     safety, and protect the rights and opportunities of workers.
       The AFL-CIO believes the current system of immigration 
     enforcement in the United States is broken and needs to be 
     fixed. Our starting points are simple.
       Undocumented workers and their families make enormous 
     contributions to their communities and workplaces and should 
     be provided permanent legal status through a new amnesty 
     program.
       Regulated legal immigration is better than unregulated 
     illegal immigration.
       Immigrant workers should have full workplace rights in 
     order to protect their own interests as well as the labor 
     rights of all American workers.
       Labor and business should work together to design 
     cooperative mechanisms that allow law-abiding employers to 
     satisfy legitimate needs for new workers in a timely manner 
     without compromising the rights and opportunities of workers 
     already here.
       Labor and business should cooperate to undertake expanded 
     efforts to educate and train American workers in order to 
     upgrade their skill levels in ways that enhance our shared 
     economic prosperity.
       Criminal penalties should be established to punish 
     employers who recruit undocumented workers from abroad for 
     the purpose of exploiting workers for economic gain.
       Current efforts to improve immigration enforcement, while 
     failing to stop the flow of undocumented people into the 
     United States, have resulted in a system that causes 
     discrimination and leaves unpunished unscrupulous employers 
     who exploit undocumented workers, thus denying labor rights 
     for all workers.
       The combination of a poorly constructed and ineffectively 
     enforced system that results in penalties for only a few of 
     the employers who violate immigration laws has had especially 
     detrimental impacts on efforts to organize and adequately 
     represent workers. Unscrupulous employers have systematically 
     used the I-9 process in their efforts to retaliate against 
     workers who seek to join unions, improve their working 
     conditions, and otherwise assert their rights.
       Therefore, the AFL-CIO calls for replacing the current I-9 
     system as a tool of workplace immigration enforcement. We 
     should substitute a system of immigration enforcement 
     strategies that focuses on the criminalization of employer 
     behavior, targeting those employers who recruit undocumented 
     workers from abroad, either directly or indirectly. It should 
     be supplemented with strong penalties against employers who 
     abuse workers' immigration status to suppress their rights 
     and labor protections. The federal government should 
     aggressively investigate, and criminally prosecute, those 
     employers who knowingly exploit a worker's undocumented 
     status in order to prevent enforcement of workplace 
     protection laws.
       We strongly believe employer sanctions, as a nationwide 
     policy applied to all workplaces, has failed and should be 
     eliminated. It should be replaced with an alternative policy 
     to reduce undocumented immigration and prevent employer 
     abuse. Any new policy must meet the following principles: (1) 
     it must seek to prevent employer discrimination against 
     people who look or sound foreign; (2) it must allow workers 
     to pursue legal remedies, including supporting a union, 
     regardless of immigration status; and (3) it must avoid 
     unfairly targeting immigrant workers of a particular 
     nationality.
       There is a long tradition in the United States of 
     protecting those who risk their financial and physical well-
     being to come forward to report violations of laws that were 
     enacted for the public good. Courageous undocumented workers 
     who come forward to assert their rights should not be faced 
     with deportation as a result of their actions. The recent 
     situation at the Holiday Inn Express in Minneapolis 
     highlights the perversity of the current situation. 
     Therefore, the AFL-CIO calls for the enactment of 
     whistleblower protections providing protected immigration 
     status for undocumented workers who report violations of 
     worker protection laws or cooperate with federal agencies 
     during investigations of employment, labor and discrimination 
     violations. Such workers should be accorded full remedies, 
     including reinstatement and back pay. Further, undocumented 
     workers who exercise their rights to organize and bargain 
     collectively should also be provided protected immigration 
     status.
       Millions of hard-working people who make enormous 
     contributions to their communities and workplace are denied 
     basic human rights because of their undocumented status. Many 
     of these men and women are the parents of children who are 
     birthright U.S. citizens. The AFL-CIO supports a new amnesty 
     program that would allow these members of local communities 
     to adjust their status to permanent resident and become 
     eligible for naturalization. The AFL-CIO also calls on the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service to address the 
     shameful delays facing those seeking to adjust their status 
     as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
       Immediate steps should include legalization for three 
     distinct groups of established residents: (1) Approximately 
     half-a-million Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and 
     Haitians, who fled civil war and civil strife during the 
     1980s and early 1990s and were unfairly denied refugee 
     status, and have lived under various forms of temporary legal 
     status; (2) approximately 350,000 long-resident immigrants 
     who were unfairly denied legalization due to illegal behavior 
     by the INS during the amnesty program enacted in the late 
     1980s; and (3) approximately 10,000 Liberians who fled their 
     homeland's brutal civil war and have lived in the United 
     States for years under temporary legal status.
       Guestworker programs too often are used to discriminate 
     against U.S. workers, depress wages and distort labor 
     markets. For these reasons, the AFL-CIO has long been 
     troubled by the operation of such programs. The proliferation 
     of guestworker programs has resulted in the creation of a 
     class of easily exploited workers, who find themselves in a 
     situation very similar to that faced by undocumented workers. 
     The AFL-CIO renews our call for the halt to the expansion of 
     guestworker programs. Moreover, these programs should be 
     reformed to include more rigorous labor market tests and the 
     involvement of labor unions in the labor certification 
     process. All temporary guestworkers should be afforded the 
     same workplace protections available to all workers.
       The rights and dignity of all workers can best be ensured 
     when immigrant and non-immigrant workers are fully informed 
     about the contributions of immigrants to our society and our 
     unions, and about the rights of immigrants under current 
     labor, discrimination, naturalization, and other laws. Labor 
     unions have led the way in developing model programs that 
     should be widely emulated. The AFL-CIO therefore supports the 
     creation of education programs and centers to educate workers 
     about immigration issues and to assist workers in exercising 
     their rights.
       Far too many workers lack access to training programs. Like 
     all other workers, new immigrants want to improve their lives 
     and those of their families by participating in job training. 
     The AFL-CIO supports the expansion of job training programs 
     to better serve immigrant populations. These programs are 
     essential to the ability of immigrants to seize opportunities 
     to compete in the new economy.
       Immigrant workers make enormous contributions to our 
     economy and society, and deserve the basic safety net 
     protections that all other workers enjoy. The AFL-CIO 
     continues to support the full restoration of benefits that 
     were unfairly taken away through Federal legislation in 1996, 
     causing tremendous harm to immigrant families.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and 
continue to reserve my point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member 
on the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 12355]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
raising this very important point, and we in the Committee on the 
Judiciary have worked hard to correct it. I cannot understand why it 
has only 5 minutes on each side. But we are trying to make an 
improvement on the registry by which the government recognizes that it 
makes sense to allow a long-time resident, deeply rooted immigrant who 
is here contributing to our economy to remain here permanently.
  So we have this correction for people that have come to the country, 
made well, raised families, have created no problem, are otherwise good 
citizens and we are modifying a rule that INS is not able to do without 
this legislation. I think this is an excellent amendment, and I hope 
that all the members in the Committee will agree to it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much, and I thank him also for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) who has been a long-standing fighter on this issue.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding me this time. This is an extremely important issue 
which we have fought from the early times of the 1990s up to now. It 
just does not make good sense from an economic standpoint or political 
standpoint or a moral standpoint for the United States not to recognize 
that these Salvadorans, Haitians, Guatemalans all of them are here now, 
they have lived good lives and paid taxes. There is no reason for us 
now not to approve the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  It is an important amendment. If we allow these people who have been 
here a long time, paying their taxes, not breaking our rules, this will 
get them out of legal limbo.
  Mr. Chairman, some of us come from areas where there are inordinate 
amounts of people in this category. They are living in this country 
doing well, pay taxes; and this amendment will get them out of the 
legal quagmire which we put them in. It is not their fault that they 
were put in this situation. This was a mistake or misconception by INS.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that this is about 
fairness. It is that simple. And it is time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the committee before. It is 
time to address it. I think each and every Member in this body has 
dealt with a family that finds itself in limbo waiting for a loved one 
to come back.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing it forward, 
and I would hope that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) would recede 
on the point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, that is all I need just to rise in strong 
support of this amendment. I think it speaks to an extremely important 
issue; one that we have to continue to work on. I support the 
gentlewoman wholeheartedly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time. I will also offer to speak on the point of order, subsequent 
to the distinguished gentleman continuing to raise it.
  Mr. Chairman, I note even on page 37 that this bill legislated on an 
appropriations bill. But I think this is a human factor here. We are 
talking about families who have been separated from each other. We are 
talking about families who remain divided because they, for very 
important family reasons, had to leave the country to go and take care 
of family matters.
  But we are also talking about contributing individuals who have 
contributed to the economy of this country. All they want, Mr. 
Chairman, is the ability to adjust their status to legal status. The 
same right allowed to other immigrants in their same category. However 
because the INS misinterpreted the rule, and the courts have affirmed 
that the INS misinterpreted the rule, we have this injustice.
  I hope that this amendment can be passed and I thank the Chairman for 
the time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, yes. Again, I will restate, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) clearly is aware of the fact that despite 
any merits, this amendment does not belong on this bill. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it 
proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in the pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it directly amends existing 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) wish 
to be heard on the point of order offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham)?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me refer the Chairman to 
page 37 of this bill which, in fact, under section 112 there is the 
implementation of a genealogy fee, which as far as I am concerned is 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  This is such a crucial bill, if there is precedent that we have 
legislated on an appropriations bill, then I would ask that the point 
of order be waived and that this amendment be allowed to go forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that the 
amendment proposes a direct amendment to existing law. As such, it 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The 
point of order is sustained, and the Chair would advise Members that 
other provisions in the bill that may be legislation were subject to 
waivers of points of order.


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Amendment No. 75 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for payment of 
     expenses of any United States delegation or special envoy at 
     a United Nations-sponsored meeting at which the delegation or 
     envoy votes for or otherwise advocates the adoption of any 
     provision under the United Nations Convention Against 
     Transnational Organized Crime that legalizes, legitimizes, or 
     decriminalizes prostitution in any form or under any 
     circumstances, or otherwise limits international efforts to 
     combat sex trafficking whether or not the individual being 
     trafficked consents to engage in prostitution.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this limitation of funds amendment is simple, direct 
and necessary. It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to pay 
expenses for any United States delegation or special envoy at a United 
Nations-sponsored meeting at which the delegation or envoy votes for or 
otherwise advocates the adoption of any provision that legalizes, 
legitimizes, or decriminalizes prostitution in any form, or under any 
circumstance, or otherwise limits international efforts to combat sex

[[Page 12356]]

trafficking, whether or not the individual being trafficked consents to 
engage in prostitution.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues would not think that such a resolution 
would be necessary. But here are the sad facts. At Beijing +5, there 
was a document released condemning the sexual exploitation of women 
around the world. It eloquently condemned domestic violence, sexual 
abuse, sexual slavery and sexual harassment. But on the issue of 
prostitution, it clarified, quote, ``forced prostitution.''
  Why ``forced'' prostitution? All prostitution is the sexual 
exploitation of women. How, exactly, does one distinguish between women 
who are sometimes forcibly taken and sold into prostitution, those who 
are involuntarily forced to sign ``consent'' or voluntary participation 
forms, those whose families push them into such agreements, those in 
dire poverty where circumstances drive them into sexual exploitation, 
and those who knows what other societal pressures would pressure them 
into selling their bodies for sex to those who choose to exploit them?
  Apparently, our U.S. delegation at the two most recent conferences, 
one in Vienna and one in Beijing +5 Conference, felt it could do so. 
According to reports, the Philippine delegation moved to strike the 
word ``forced'' prostitution. According to numerous eyewitness reports, 
the U.S. State Department official assisting the U.S. delegation jumped 
up and moved to strike the entire reference.
  Mr. Chairman, what is going on here? Is it the Clinton 
administration's position that prostitution is okay?
  Feminist leaders apparently thought so. Equality Now had already sent 
a letter on behalf of a coalition of women's rights groups to the 
President after the conference in Vienna which states, among other 
things, ``To our chagrin, the United States strongly supports the use 
of the term `forced prostitution' rather than `prostitution' in the 
definition of `sexual exploitation.' We believe that the 
administration's current position on the definition of trafficking is 
extremely detrimental to women.''
  It was even more difficult for these feminist leaders to condemn the 
administration's position since Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Chair of 
the President's Interagency Council on Women, formed after the initial 
Beijing Women's Conference. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the conference and 
delivered several other messages of support.
  After the United States Government effort to protect some types of 
prostitution, that somehow it viewed as nonexploitative of women became 
public, clarifications and denials of sorts were made.
  Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff carefully qualified their position, 
taking the position that the document did not require the U.S. to 
change our laws, a somewhat accurate response to a completely different 
question. The document only condemned some types of prostitution. The 
United States representatives clearly wanted some types not to be 
condemned, and the First Lady's Chief of Staff did not deny that point.

                              {time}  2115

  The President's response was somewhat more clear in a fuzzy sort of 
way. Agreeing with this resolution, my resolution, he clearly states 
his ``opposition to prostitution in all its forms.'' Then he subtly 
changes the point to, ``We would not become a party to any treaty that 
weaken laws against prostitution,'' and then further attempted to 
change away his Beijing +5 actions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.
  Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. SERRANO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), who has worked with this amendment and has 
been a leader on this issue.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana.
  As a Member of Congress, I like to dream about the future of our 
country and imagine an educated America, a healthy America, a 
prosperous America, and a secure America. I think of children in this 
great Nation and the bright future that they represent. Unfortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, for many throughout this world their tomorrow is not as 
bright. They do not have their health, education, and security.
  In fact, they live in utter misery under the cruel control of their 
oppressors. They are women and children who are sold, coerced, or 
otherwise find themselves being exploited by sex traffickers. This is 
the life of approximately 2 million people worldwide.
  Many women find themselves victims of sexual trafficking by being 
drugged and kidnapped and lured with false promises of jobs far away. 
They are beaten and raped until they consent to prostitute themselves 
to customers. Is this voluntary prostitution? Prostitution is an 
exploitation of women and a violation of their dignity and basic human 
rights.
  To my great dismay, while the Clinton administration may pay lip 
service to this same idea, their actions do not show it. Despite the 
horrors of the sex trafficking industry throughout the world, this 
administration has promoted the position that voluntary prostitution is 
okay and sex traffickers, who are somehow able to obtain the consent of 
their victims, should be immune from prosecution. This is 
unconscionable and unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I do not believe the 
State Department ought to be able to use the taxpayers' dollars to send 
representatives of the United States to the U.N. conference where they 
take the stance that voluntary prostitution is okay and a legitimate 
form of labor.
  Mr. Chairman, prostitution in any form or under any circumstances is 
an intolerable exploitation of women.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina has 
expired.
  Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment.
  The amendment changes existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. SOUDER. First off, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the 
interpretation that I fear is coming. From our discussions, I 
understand that this is anticipating a future action, potentially, and 
therefore could be construed as legislating on an appropriations bill.
  However, since the last two conferences in a row, with our last 
funding process that we went through in this House, in fact the 
administration agents, through the State Department, took this 
position. I would argue that this is a limitation of funds because 
there is no reason to believe that they will not take the position a 
third time.
  I understand that this is now at the mercy of the Chair, and I hope 
he strongly considers that position.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New York raises a point of order that the 
amendment changes existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The amendment in pertinent part seeks to restrict funds for United 
States delegates who ``otherwise advocate'' the adoption of a described 
convention.
  The fact that similar representations have been advocated in the past 
by delegates to the United Nations does not immunize the amendment from 
the point of order, which applies to the use of funds in the next 
fiscal year.
  Requiring the relevant Federal official to determine whether a 
delegate has ``advocated'' the adoption of a convention under any 
circumstance imposes a new duty.
  Accordingly, the amendment is not in order and the point of order is 
sustained.

[[Page 12357]]


  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 
briefly discuss the funding level for International Broadcasting.
  I want to thank the gentleman for providing an increase in funding 
for International Broadcasting Operations and Broadcasting Capital 
Improvements above last year's level, and specifically for the increase 
for Radio Free Asia. This additional funding will enable these 
broadcasting services to meet some of the overwhelming demand for 
uncensored news and information in oppressed areas of the world.
  However, there is still a great unmet need, especially in Asia. In 
H.R. 4444, which granted permanent normal trade relations to China, was 
legislation authorizing increased funds for international broadcasting 
services in China and neighboring countries. If this package should be 
signed into law before the conference on this appropriations bill, and 
additional funds are made available, I ask that the gentleman from 
Kentucky work with me to ensure that international broadcast funding be 
increased.
  H.R. 4444 provided for an additional authorization of $65 million for 
Broadcasting Capital Improvements and $34 million for International 
Broadcasting Operations. I realize there is a large amount of money in 
today's tight budgetary constraints. However, international 
broadcasting is in desperate need of new and stronger transmitters to 
counteract the increase of jamming practices by oppressive regimes of 
Asia. Expansion of Internet capability is also greatly needed as the 
Internet continues to become accessible to more people.
  Any increase in funding allowing for the expansion of these services 
would make a significant difference for the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors and be a beacon of light to billions of Asians living under 
repressive regimes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his statement and his long-standing efforts on behalf of 
International Broadcasting.
  Should H.R. 4444 become law, and additional funding be provided in 
our allocation, we will endeavor to fund Radio Free Asia, Voice of 
America, and Broadcasting Capital Improvements at a level which 
reflects the increasing needs in Asia.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the chairman for his acknowledgment of my request 
and his support for International Broadcasting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and as a Member of Congress who has two Weed and Seed sites in his 
district in Michigan, one in Benton Harbor and one in Kalamazoo, I know 
very well how valuable the Weed and Seed is to the people who live 
there.
  I commend the chairman for recognizing the value of the Weed and Seed 
program and recognizing that the best solutions to crime problems are 
customized to neighborhood needs, which is at the very core of the Weed 
and Seed program.
  The bill before us tonight provides $33.5 million for Weed and Seed, 
which is the amount that was appropriated in the fiscal year 2000 bill. 
However, in previous years, the Department of Justice was permitted to 
reprogram other funds to the Weed and Seed program, increasing the 
level of funds available to the program. For instance, in fiscal year 
2000, the program received $40 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the gentleman from Kentucky 
might be able to give me an assurance that he will work to assure that 
the Weed and Seed program will receive at least as much funding in 2001 
as we received in fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan for his work on this issue.
  I will work to assure the program is funded in fiscal 2001 at least 
at the level of funds available in the current year.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I have concerns regarding the level of funding provided for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's scientific and 
technical research and services account, including the Global Standards 
Program.
  As the chairman knows, the Global Standards Program is intended to 
provide guidance to industries and to facilitate global harmonization 
of standards where possible. An issue has come to my attention that 
involves standards for anchor bolts that are post-installed in 
concrete.
  The Transatlantic Business Dialogue has recommended that NIST 
facilitate a transparent standards harmonization process for these 
products, which are sold in Europe and the United States. Is it the 
gentleman's opinion that this bill provides adequate funding for this 
effort?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the 
gentlewoman that, yes, I do believe this is a function that would be 
adequately covered by the funding provided in the bill for NIST. It is 
my understanding that NIST has begun a technical analysis on this very 
issue.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for clarifying this 
issue for me.


             Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     107, after line 21) the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to seek the revocation or revision of the laws or 
     regulations of another country that relate to intellectual 
     property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals or other 
     medical technologies and comply with the Agreement on Trade 
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to 
     in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).


     Modification to Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment such that it explicitly applies only when the United States 
Trade Representative is engaged in a Special 301 process established 
under the 1974 Trade Act and that it applies only to developing 
countries.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Brown of 
     Ohio:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be:
       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the United States Trade Representative to seek the 
     revocation or revision of the laws or regulations of a 
     developing country under the Special 301 process established 
     under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended that relate to 
     intellectual property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals 
     or other medical technologies and comply with the Agreement 
     on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
     referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act.


[[Page 12358]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)?
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for an explanation of his 
modification.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, malaria killed 1.1 million people 
last year; 2.2 million people, mostly children, died of diarrheal 
infections; 2.3 million died of AIDS; 1.5 million of tuberculosis. Mr. 
Chairman, we know how to treat each of these diseases. We could have 
saved the lives of many of these people.
  Countries around the world are attempting to expand access to 
desperately needed prescription drugs by pursuing competitive 
strategies explicitly permitted under international trade agreements. 
The USTR, on behalf of the global prescription drug industry, has made 
a practice of pressuring these nations to forsake legitimate strategies 
that can achieve lower prices; strategies like parallel importing and 
compulsory licensing.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation and object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Both of these practices, parallel importing and compulsory licensing, 
are explicitly permitted under a world trade agreement commonly 
referred to as TRIPS. The WTO TRIPS accord sets global norms for 
patents, for trademarks, for copyrights, and for other types of 
intellectual property.
  It is a tough set of requirements. For example, it requires all WTO 
member countries, including the United States, to adopt 20-year patents 
on medicines, even though under our patent law our patent length was 17 
years.
  The WTO TRIPS agreement requires many poor countries to adopts rules 
that actually raise the price of their medicines. The USTR, on behalf 
of the prescription drug industry, is pushing countries to abandon 
fully sanctioned actions, like parallel importing and compulsory 
licensing.
  It is difficult to believe the U.S. is participating in efforts to 
prevent developing countries from fighting back when drug companies 
ignore the dire consequences of their actions and abuse their monopoly 
power, for example, when they impose higher prices in developing 
countries than in industrialized nations, as in the case with AIDS drug 
Fluconazole.

                              {time}  2130

  U.S. trade officials have pressured South Africa, Thailand, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Costa Rica, the Dominican 
Republic, and many other poor nations, threatening sanctions unless 
they forsake rights they have under the TRIPS agreement.
  In many of these countries, the average income is less than $1 a day.
  In December last year, President Clinton told the WTO it was time to 
change U.S. trade policy, to consider the issue of access to medicines.
  In May, the President issued an executive order prohibiting the USTR 
from pressuring sub-Saharan African nations into giving up legitimate 
competitive strategies aimed at expanding access to HIV/AIDS drugs.
  In justifying his decision to reign in the USTR, the President 
asserted ``it is in the interest of the United States to take all 
reasonable steps to prevent further spread of infectious disease, 
particularly HIV/AIDS. The TRIPS agreement recognizes the importance of 
promoting effective and adequate protection of intellectual property 
rights and the right of countries to adopt measures necessary to 
protect public health.''
  Our amendment is grounded in that same logic.
  The United States should enforce the TRIPS agreement to ensure the 
proper protection of property rights to be sure, but it should not 
undercut the balance TRIPS strikes between protecting intellectual 
property and promoting the public health.
  The President's executive order applies only to AIDS drugs and only 
to sub-Sahara Africa. Our amendment says the United States should not 
interfere in legitimate efforts to expand access to essential medicines 
in developing countries in health crises.
  This amendment does not undercut in any way intellectual property 
protections. It permits the U.S. to insist on tough provisions of the 
WTO TRIPS agreement, but it prevents the U.S. Government from seeking 
to impose so-called ``TRIPS Plus'' protections on countries when these 
more onerous protections would have a negative impact on access to 
medicine.
  Not only is this policy appropriate from a public health point of 
view, it is also consistent with the WTO TRIPS agreement itself. 
Article I of the TRIPS agreement says ``Members may, but shall not be 
obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is 
required by this Agreement.'' The key phrase is ``not obliged to.''
  The United States should honor, in fact we should applaud, policies 
in other countries that place the health and well-being of people ahead 
of the profit goals of the prescription drug industry.
  Hindering efforts to combat debilitating and fatal diseases on behalf 
of the global prescription drug industry is an unjustifiable and 
counterproductive use of our Nation's power and influence. This 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, helps us to put a stop to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong on this bill. It is a 
subject for the Committee on Ways and Means. It is within their 
jurisdiction. And they are objecting. In addition, the administration 
is strongly opposing the amendment. It will bog down this bill.
  So, for all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am in 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. The Brown 
amendment compromises USTR's ability to protect U.S. intellectual 
property rights around the world for U.S. pharmaceutical companies and 
medical device manufacturers.
  Section 315 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act clearly states that 
it is U.S. policy to seek enactment and implementation of foreign 
intellectual property laws that strengthen and supplement TRIPS. The 
Brown amendment directly contradicts this provision, conflicting with 
U.S. law.
  The pharmaceutical and medical technologies industry depend on 
consistent and fair trade rules, including those that protect 
intellectual property rights. Without such practices, companies and 
those who invest in them will be discouraged from providing the 
necessary capital to pursue the development of new medicines.
  A consistent theme in U.S. trade policy is encouraging an environment 
based on rule of law around the world that U.S. firms need to be able 
to compete. The Brown amendment sends countries conflicting messages 
that we would like them to provide the highest degree of intellectual 
property protection in every category except pharmaceuticals and 
medical technology.
  Ironically, the Brown amendment, which is intended to help poor 
countries, will actually hurt them by reducing their ability to attract 
foreign investment. Developing countries need the transfer of 
technology and know-how for their economic growth and stronger, not 
weaker, intellectual protection is the way to get it.
  In short, the Brown amendment is the wrong solution to increasing the 
access of developing countries to pharmaceuticals and medical 
technologies. Instead of stripping U.S. firms of their legal rights, we 
should seek to encourage partnerships between U.S. pharmaceutical firms 
and developing countries.
  For example, several U.S. firms are already involved in pilot 
programs to

[[Page 12359]]

increase access to AIDS drugs in African countries. Encouraging growing 
economies, as we are doing in the recently enacted African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, also enables developing countries to have the 
resources to purchase drugs without discouraging further innovation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a hardworking member of our committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a system of patents for a reason, to protect 
intellectual property rights of the people who create new inventions 
and products, as well as protect the efficacy of the actual product. 
And the efficacy of drug products and medicines are important. It is 
all about safeguarding patients, patients around the world.
  Our U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, has been pursuing 
the enforcement of U.S. patent laws in virtually every international 
market and she has done so effectively. As the U.S. representative for 
the fair treatment of U.S. products anywhere and everywhere in the 
world, this is her charge.
  This amendment basically tells that representative to stop doing her 
job. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
  I know that the intent of the gentleman is to help those suffering 
from horrendous diseases, such as AIDS and other diseases in Africa and 
other places, by guaranteeing access to prescription medicine at the 
cheapest cost. But, with all due respect to the gentleman, this is not 
the way to achieve his goal and he will not likely achieve his goal.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this amendment. A year ago, 
on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, we debated the 
Sanders amendment dealing very specifically with Asian and African 
countries applying specifically to pharmaceuticals.
  The amendment now that we have before us seems to me to apply far 
beyond pharmaceuticals to any medical technology. It could cover laser 
equipment used in cosmetic surgery, prohibit the executive branch from 
encouraging nations to provide TRIPS Plus protection to patents which 
cover such laser technologies.
  It also seems like the Sanders amendment last year was designed to 
make pharmaceuticals more affordable. It specifically was approaching 
trade representative activities which enforced patent laws that would 
make drugs more expensive. This does not have that kind of limitation.
  The Brown amendment would prohibit the executive branch from seeking 
to appeal a TRIPS compliant law covering IPR and pharmaceuticals that 
is intended to discriminate against U.S. pharmaceuticals.
  So a Western European law that has nothing to do with getting drugs 
to Africa, which has nothing to do with dealing with the crisis in 
Africa, but which is designed to discriminate against U.S.-made 
pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, the USTR would be prohibited 
from focusing on it if it did not violate TRIPS.
  I think that it may overreach in that regard, and that is why I have 
some concerns about this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

       Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed 
will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would block the implementation of 
unratified limitation on missile defense. Precisely the same amendment, 
word for word, passed the House last year by voice vote and the 
previous year before that by a significant margin. And so, this 
amendment would merely continue that status quo in the law and not 
change present law.
  Mr. Chairman, on September 26, 1997, the Clinton administration 
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and related treaties with 
Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine. If ratified, these 
treaties would strengthen the 1972 ABM Treaty with the former Soviet 
Union and impose new and severe restrictions on America's ability to 
develop and deploy missile defense systems.
  But these agreements have not been submitted to the Senate and they 
have not been ratified. And that is why this amendment should pass, so 
that they are not implemented unless and until the U.S. Senate 
considers and ratifies those agreements.
  Mr. Chairman, these agreements, the MOU and related documents, 
essentially do two things. First of all, they change the parties to the 
1972 ABM Treaty, substituting for the USSR: Kazakhstan, Belarus, 
Russia, and the Ukraine. Secondly, and more importantly, they really 
expand the Treaty and expand the scope to disallow more theatre and 
missile defense systems.
  The original 1972 Treaty places no limitations on theater missile 
defense. These new demarcation agreements would prohibit the U.S. from 
being able to fully develop our theatre missile defense systems. And 
that is, of course, why these agreements are so important.
  Now, the Clinton administration has frankly admitted there is no 
debate, and this House has voted many times that this is a new treaty 
and, therefore, must be put before the United States Senate and 
ratified by the United States Senate. This has never happened. And that 
is why we should pass this amendment to prevent implementation unless 
and until the Senate takes up and ratifies these new treaties.
  As I said, this passed last year by a voice vote. It passed the year 
before that by a substantial margin. I would certainly implore the 
House to pass it again this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I seek the time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because this 
issue has come up in previous years. The State Department has opposed 
it.
  In the past, the State Department, during conference, has been able 
to get language added, making it subject to a presidential 
certification. And that language is not in the amendment of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) today.
  This amendment is unnecessary because the administration has already 
said that it will not implement the September 1997 Memorandum of 
Understanding on secession to the ABM Treaty prior to its ratification 
by the Senate.

[[Page 12360]]

  In a letter and report provided to the chairman of the Senate and 
House Committee on Appropriations dated February 9, 1999, the President 
certified and affirmed that the United States Government is not 
implementing the Memorandum of Understanding. The way it is currently 
worded, without the President's certification language, the State 
Department would be prevented from sending representatives to meetings 
because it would prohibit money for any participation. The State 
Department wants to be able to participate in meetings even though it 
is not implementing the agreement. If the prohibition is on 
implementation but the State Department is not implementing, they can 
attend meetings with the presidential certification.
  In our view, Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to obstruct the arms 
control dialogue. It is unnecessary and it is unjustified.
  What we are saying is simply that the way this amendment is worded at 
this particular time will hamper ongoing discussions about arms control 
unnecessarily.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, with regard to the issue of the 
certification, if the certification language were in this amendment, it 
would then be subject to a point of order. So for that very simple 
parliamentary reason, that certification language cannot be put in this 
amendment on the House floor. Should the process, as in previous years, 
yield that certification language, I would not object; and I would 
suggest we should move the process along by passing this amendment as 
it has evolved in previous years.
  Also, if, as the gentleman on the other side said in opposition, this 
amendment is not necessary, then neither he nor the administration 
should object to it. In fact, I believe the standing consultative 
commission does offer this administration the opportunity to implement 
and to push forward unratified new treaties. That is clearly 
inappropriate. The way to push forward these treaties, if they are in 
the best interest of the country, is to submit them to the United 
States Senate and have the Senate decide the issue. That is their 
constitutional duty; and, in fact, it is beyond debate.
  The administration has agreed that if it is a new treaty, it must be 
submitted to the Senate. So this amendment is merely a very wise, 
precautionary measure and may, in fact, yield the certification 
language as this appropriation bill moves through the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply disagree on this issue. Without the language 
concerning a presidential certification, we continue to object.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that, in fact, we are 
talking about brand new agreements, treaties, which have never been 
submitted to the Senate, never been debated or ratified by the Senate. 
So clearly this is an appropriate, a wise, a conservative and 
cautionary amendment. It has been adopted the last 2 years. I would not 
object to the certification language if it is included as it moves 
through the process. So in that vein, I urge the House to adopt this 
amendment as it has the previous two years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) to 
engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to make note of a particular 
issue. On October 25, 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction established reciprocal rights and duty 
to expedite the return of children to their state of habitual 
residence, as well as ensure that rights of custody and of access under 
the laws of one contracting State are respected in other contracting 
States.
  Subsequent to this convention, over 50 countries have become 
signatory members. Yet, egregious cases abound. A critical step to 
protecting our American children is making sure that U.S. Federal and 
State courts are aware of international parental abduction issues and 
The Hague Convention. Current law requires that the State Department 
prepare an annual report on the status of this Hague Convention. 
Unfortunately, the State Department has been reluctant to distribute 
their report to our courts. By providing State and Federal courts 
access to this document, judges will be better equipped to render 
decisions in custody cases that are in the best interest of the child.
  Mr. Chairman, on May 23 of this year, every single Member of this 
distinguished body who was present voted to support passage of a 
resolution, the purpose of which was to highlight our interest in 
making sure that American children and parents remain in this country. 
Every single Member of this House voted for H. Con. Res. 293 to urge 
the Secretary of State, in part, to disseminate to all Federal and 
State courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on 
Hague Convention compliance.
  As the chairman takes this bill to conference, I ask him to keep this 
issue in mind and endeavor to ensure that the State Department complies 
with the guidance in H. Con. Res. 293.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
issue to our attention. I would be happy to work with the gentleman as 
the bill proceeds to conference to see if we can address the 
gentleman's concerns and congratulate him on the work that he has done 
on the issue.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Allen

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Allen:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 624. Of the funds appropriated in title II under the 
     heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs -- Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'', $200,000 shall be available only for 
     bilateral and multilateral diplomatic activities designed to 
     promote the termination of the North Korean ballistic missile 
     program.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2000, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering designates a small amount, 
$200,000, of the State Department's diplomatic account for bilateral 
and multilateral activities designed to promote the termination of the 
North Korean ballistic missile program. Everyone agrees we must address 
the potential threat of a ballistic missile attack by Korea. The 
question is, what is the most effective and economical way to deal with 
the threat? Some argue the best way, the only way, to deal with North 
Korea is to build a defensive shield and then hope that it can shoot 
down a missile after it is launched.
  This approach assumes, of course, that a national missile defense 
would work as advertised, which has not been proven and could not be 
fooled by decoy technology, which we may never be sure of.
  We must continue to research and test national missile defense more 
rigorously than we are now, but given the technological uncertainties, 
NMD remains a risky and expensive option to

[[Page 12361]]

deal with the North Korean threat. It is safer and cheaper to deal with 
a missile that has never been built than to gamble that it can be hit 
after its launch.
  Last year, the administration conducted a comprehensive North Korea 
policy review led by former Defense Secretary William Perry. It 
concluded that the urgent focus of U.S. policy toward North Korea must 
be to end its nuclear weapons and long range missile-related activities 
for which the U.S. should be prepared to establish more normal 
diplomatic relations with North Korea and join in South Korea's policy 
of engagement and peaceful coexistence.
  We have already seen progress. Last year North Korea pledged to 
suspend tests of its long range missile in exchange for easing of U.S. 
sanctions. North Korea reaffirmed the pledge last week. Skeptics say 
trust their deeds, not their words, and I agree; but the fact is North 
Korea has not tested its Taepo Dong 1 missile in the 2 years since the 
first provocative test. Some may scoff at the notion of negotiating 
with a Stalinist state, but it is worth exploring.
  In the June edition of Arms Control Today, Leon Sigal, an expert on 
North Korea and security issues, presents a cogent case that based on 
past experience cooperation with Pyongyang can work. He finds that the 
best strategy for ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and 
ensuring peace in northeast Asia is cooperative threat reduction.
  The historic North-South Korea summit offers the chance to foster 
improved security conditions in the region. The Perry review found that 
South Korea and Japan and even China share our interests in reducing 
the North Korean threat. We should take advantage of the opportunity.
  This amendment sends a congressional signal of support for continued 
diplomatic efforts to reduce the North Korean missile threat. This not 
only makes security sense; it makes fiscal sense. Diplomatic efforts to 
end the threat can be done at pennies on the national missile defense 
dollar, which is a $60 billion program. The funding in this amendment 
is one-hundredth of 1 percent of the amount we will spend next year, $2 
billion on national missile defense. There is more than one way to 
reduce the North Korean threat, and some ways are cheaper than others.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to micromanage and tie the State 
Department's hands, so I will, at an appropriate time, withdraw the 
amendment; but I think it is important to indicate Congress' support 
for diplomatic avenues to end the North Korean missile threat.
  Subject to any comments on the other side, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

       Amendment No. 77 offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 107, after line 21, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     available to the Department of State to approve the purchase 
     of property in Arlington, Virginia by the Xinhua News Agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill that will 
send a strong signal to the State Department that this body insists 
that they enforce the law. This amendment lets State know that we want 
them to require the Chinese Communist Government to request approval 
for their purchase of an apartment building overlooking the Pentagon, 
and that this body wants State to deny that approval.
  At issue is the purchase of an Arlington apartment building by the 
Xinhua News Agency. The Chinese Government owns Xinhua and the Foreign 
Missions Act of 1985 requires foreign embassies to obtain prior 
authorization from our State Department for the purchase of U.S. 
property, and it explicitly covers operations like Xinhua.
  Furthermore, the authoritative Chinese intelligence operations, 
published by the Naval Institute Press, reports that in a number of 
publicized spy scandals intelligence officers used Xinhua to provide 
operations cover. The Foreign Missions Act clearly is applicable to the 
purchase of this building by Xinhua. The name of the complex, Pentagon 
Ridge Apartments, vividly describes its strategic location. Occupancy 
of this building will allow Chinese intelligence operatives to gather 
information using a variety of means. These include direct observation 
via telescope of documents being viewed in outside offices, the 
collection of electronic impulses emanated by computer screens in the 
building and the use of laser microphones to eavesdrop on 
conversations.
  In short, this building is an ideally suited spy tower designed to 
capture our military secrets.
  If this were a unique occurrence, there would be no need perhaps for 
this body to act, but unfortunately this is just one more in a sorry 
series of security breakdowns that have taken place on the Clinton 
administration's watch. Missile secrets to China, laughable security at 
Los Alamos, Russian microphones and missing laptops at the State 
Department, the list just goes on and on, and unfortunately this is 
just one more item on the list.
  In this case, our security agencies did not even know the Chinese 
Government interest in procuring this building, a strategically 
important building.
  Now, a few weeks ago, Energy Secretary Richardson blamed the 
University of California for the missile computer hard drives at Los 
Alamos. What will Secretary of State Albright do, blame the Arlington 
Board of Realtors for this fiasco?
  I recognize that this amendment covers spending for the next fiscal 
year and would not prevent State Department approval this year, but I 
hope that a very strong show of support for the amendment will 
encourage the State Department to do the right thing and block Xinhua's 
acquisition of this strategically located building.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will 
not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I do not think 
it is necessary. I appreciate the gentleman bringing the issue to the 
attention of the Congress and the country, particularly in light of the 
recent bugging of the State Department headquarters building itself. 
The State Department tells us that this sale to the Chinese Government 
news agency does require their approval, so they agree with us. State 
will consult with the intelligence community, and it is my expectation 
that they will not approve the sale.
  Furthermore, I am told State would likely take action on this matter 
before the end of this fiscal year. So I hope this provision will prove 
unnecessary, but I do support the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman for his 
kind words. I too hope that the State Department does the right thing, 
whatever action or lack of action this House would take. I simply do 
not have full confidence in that; and I think it is reasonable for me, 
for all of us, to lack that confidence given the past recent history of 
security breaches under this administration, and that is really the 
very important context in which I

[[Page 12362]]

bring this amendment. I do realize that this amendment only covers the 
next fiscal year, but I hope that a significant vote by this body will 
be a very strong and telling message to the State Department that they 
must act decisively to block the Communist Chinese Government from 
obtaining this literal spy tower on the Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Capuano

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, I believe 
it is Amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the amendment addresses a 
paragraph already passed in the reading.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts ask unanimous consent for its 
present consideration?
  Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, which 
amendment is this, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, but I do reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Capuano:

       Page 107, after line 12, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 624. (a) Within 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall conduct a study on the area 
     code crisis in the United States. Such study shall examine 
     the causes and potential solutions to the growing number of 
     area codes in the United States, including the following:
       (1) Shortening the lengthy timeline for implementation of 
     the Federal Communications Commission's recent order 
     mandating 1,000 number block pooling.
       (2) Repealing the wireless carrier exemption from the 
     Federal Communications Commission's 1,000 number block 
     pooling order.
       (3) The issue of rate center consolidation and possible 
     steps the Commission can take to encourage or require States 
     or telecommunications companies, or both, to undertake plans 
     to deal with this issue.
       (4) The feasibility of technology-specific area codes 
     reserved for wireless or paging services or data phone lines.
       (5) Strengthening the sanctions against telecommunications 
     companies that do not address number use issues.
       (6) The possibility of single number block pooling as a 
     potential solution to the area code crisis.
       (7) The costs and technological issues surrounding adding 
     an additional digit to existing phone numbers and potential 
     ways to minimize the impact on consumers.
       (b) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for 
allowing me the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with probably one of the few 
issues that will affect every single American, has affected most 
Americans already and will do so within the next 5 years, every single 
American; namely: the issue of area codes.
  In 1947, the North American Numbers Plan was enacted to establish the 
current numbering of all of our telephones, seven numbers with three 
digit area codes. As of 1994, we had 151 area codes. In the last 5 
years, that number has doubled, and as of 1999, the people that 
administer this, the Lockheed Martin, estimates that by the year 2007, 
we will be completely out of telephone numbers based on the current 
explosion of telecommunications.
  Mr. Chairman, all this amendment does is simply ask the FCC to have a 
study and issue a report to this Congress as to what they intend to do 
about this situation. Mr. Chairman, there are many things that we could 
do that we could suggest to the FCC, but at the same time, I think it 
is incumbent upon them to tell us if they have a plan that they intend 
to implement in the manner that will save lots of Americans lots of 
money.
  Many of us have been through situations where area codes have been 
added, or others have been through situations where area codes have 
been overlaid so that many Americans today have to dial 10 digits 
simply to call across the street. Many people certainly have to dial 10 
digits to get to the town next door because so many area codes have 
been added in this country; that situation is going to get horrendously 
worse each and every day.
  Just last year, the FCC cited 25 additional area codes as those, 
quote, in jeopardy. That happened since just last June. Mr. Chairman, 
this amendment is a simple amendment. It does not propose that we know 
the answers, it simply asks the FCC to provide us with their proposals 
as to what the answers will be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI, because the amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. CAPUANO. Only momentarily, Mr. Chairman, I understand and respect 
the point of order, and I would say that the next time I come here on 
this issue, I will actually be proposing suggestions for the FCC to do, 
because if I am going to get ruled our of order, I may as well get 
ruled out of order on something substantiative as opposed to simply a 
request for information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes to change existing law, 
to wit: mandating a study by the Federal Communications Commission. As 
such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Blunt

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

       Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Blunt:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 
     107, after line 21) the following new title:
               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the United States-European Union Consultative 
     Group on Biotechnology, unless the United States Trade 
     Representative certifies that the European Union has a 
     timely, transparent, science-based regulatory process for the 
     approval of agricultural biotechnology products.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page 12363]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and rise to say that 
I am proposing this amendment because of my sincere concerns for the 
US-EU Consultative Group on Biotechnology.
  This amendment would guarantee that none of the funds appropriated 
under the Act may be used to participate in or support activities of 
the consulting group unless the U.S. Trade Representative certifies 
that the European Union is operating in a timely and science-based 
process of approvals for new plant varieties, including those developed 
using biotechnology.
  What we have seen too often is the European Union used this as an 
excuse not to let our products into this market. There are already 31 
groups that have been designated to focus on this subject, I think that 
is about 30 too many, and the subject of delays brings me to a second 
reason to offer this amendment.
  For the past 2 years, the European Union has failed to complete the 
procedures necessary for marketing biotech food products in member 
States. In so doing, they are in violation of rules established by the 
World Trade Organization that require a science-based process for the 
decision or lack thereof they made regarding agricultural 
biotechnology. Instead, the establishment of yet another group to study 
biotechnology is simply a transparent attempt to string their 
inactivity along.
  Our friends and farmers in the agricultural community need help 
today. As the Government, it is imperative that we make the necessary 
commitment to look at real solutions to these European trade issues and 
not to continue to let these studies go on in a way that keeps our 
products out of the market.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that today as world scientists are 
heralding the breakthrough and mapping human genetics that the European 
Union remains in the dark ages regarding advancements in plant science.
  The European Union has demonstrated extreme reluctance in 
implementing an approval process for genetically enhanced foods. I 
think that this inaction will be prolonged by the recently announced 
consultative forum.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has talked 
about America's farmers who have been struggling now for the 3rd 
consecutive year of depressed prices, but they are not the only ones 
that are going to be affected by the European Union's inaction.
  Around the world, 170 million preschool kids are undernourished. In 
Third World countries, ag biotechnology can help develop new varieties 
that will survive the harshest climates. These countries will not be 
able to undertake effective biotech research without the support, but, 
more importantly, without the consensus of developed countries.
  Besides fighting famine and besides caring for the world's growing 
population, genetic crop enhancement can also help environmental causes 
such as reduction of pesticide use, groundwater pollution and topsoil 
erosion.
  In short, as I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt) that we would prefer the provision of the amendment be included 
in this year's appropriations bill. We also respect the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I do urge the administration to insist the U.S. 
participation and the forum be contingent on agreement by the European 
Union to restart its approval process. Mr. Chairman, let us fight 
hunger not biotechnology.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) reserve 
his time?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, while I am not in opposition 
to this amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I can control the 5 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley) will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform Members of the House that just 
this week we sent a letter from 25 of our Members to the President 
asking him to recognize that EU inaction and insist that our trading 
partners in Europe agree to mend the regulatory process in order to 
allow for a science-based approval process of new plant varieties, 
including varieties developed through the use of modern biotechnology.
  It seems that today science has taken a back seat to political 
considerations and as a result, our farmers are caught in an untenable 
situation. The situation was recently complicated further when our 
government agreed to enter into a consultative process with the EU. The 
U.S.-EU consultative forum has been formed to negotiate issues related 
to biotechnology. Discussion is always a healthy exercise, and under 
different circumstances, I and others who signed a letter to the 
President would unreservedly welcome the opportunity to sit down with 
EU representatives. In fact, we have welcomed the opportunity with open 
arms in the form of 30 other such groups that are currently discussing 
related biotech issues. However, we must now stand behind America's 
farmers who are losing critical markets.
  Corn farmers are losing an estimated $200 million annually, and 
hundreds of millions in other agriculture exports are being lost. We 
must send a message to the EU that while we welcome dialogue, we insist 
that the meeting of this particular forum be contingent upon agreement 
by EU nations to restart its approval process for biotechnology 
products.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important message that we are 
sending here tonight, and I urge thorough consideration by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me further say that America's farmers and food 
processors deserve action, not just continued talk as my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and my friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) have already pointed out, there are many 
studies going on.
  We are losing an estimated $200 million a year in corn sales and as 
many millions in other ag exports. How can we justify spending 
taxpayers' money, including the tax money that our farmers pay on a 
process that promises to keep them out of the market or more likely 
promises to keep them twisting in the wind.
  Mr. Chairman, the safety of agricultural biotechnology has been 
firmly established. Our own Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, has 
stated that, quote, our best science is to search for risk. Without 
exception the biotech products on our shelves have proven safe, and 
millions of people worldwide have consumed biotech foods without a 
single adverse incident.
  Furthermore, respected scientific and policy-oriented organizations, 
along with renowned scientists and humanitarians have lined up in favor 
of agricultural biotechnology. They advocate for a process that is 
increasing crop yields, creating nutritious crops that promise to 
improve the health and welfare of millions.
  These crops are raised in an environmentally safe and friendly way. 
It means better production on fewer acres with less fertilizer, less 
chemicals, less pesticides. This is exactly the direction that the 
environment should be headed, biotechnology is part of that solution. 
It has now reached a point where reasonable people must ask really the 
question, is this really about biotechnology or is it about something 
else?
  It is an easy conclusion. The European Union nations are clearly 
trying to protect their farmers from superior

[[Page 12364]]

products that we can send into that market. Regardless of its motives, 
the EU has an obligation under the rules of the WTO to act responsibly 
and establish a science-based system for conducting a risks assessment 
of biotech products.
  Added conversation in consulting forums is not going to get this 
done. Only the resolve of the EU members, a resolve to, at a minimum, 
incorporate an approval process, will see that this goal and see that 
it is met.
  We must move forward. We must open these markets. We must insist that 
the rules of the free trade, the rules of the marketplace are fairly 
applied to Missouri farmers and to American farmers, to California 
farmers, to all of those who can participate in this new and 
significantly enhanced way.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blunt amendment.
  At first glance, the United States-European Union Consultative Forum 
on Biotechnology appears to be a step toward opening Europe's doors to 
our ag biotech products. When you look again, you start to wonder what 
the purpose of this group may actually be. The U.S. Trade 
Representative has no press release on the formation of the 
Consultative Forum; I've only seen news clippings. My staff has 
contacted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for information, 
but received no call back. If the Consultative Forum is so significant, 
you would think that information on it would be made readily available. 
I see no reason why such an organization should be funded by the U.S. 
Congress if we neither know the purpose nor the possible outcome of 
negotiations.
  Currently, there are over 30 organizations looking into the different 
issues surrounding biotechnology. Will this ``Forum'' be anything 
different than the others? I don't think so. The U.S. Government must 
have some agreement by the E.U. to restart its approval process before 
we move forward with another ``Forum'' on this issue. It cannot be yet 
another excuse to avoid action.
  This amendment should be adopted to ensure the adequate and effective 
protection of our U.S. agricultural goods produced through 
biotechnology. American farmers are waiting for the Clinton 
administration to take leadership on this delicate trade issue, and so 
far, USTR seems to be stuck in a holding pattern. It's time for our 
biotech trading policy to be taken off autopilot and moved forward to 
assist our struggling American farmers.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment from my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Missouri. This amendment would prohibit funding of the United States-
European Union Consultative Group on Biotechnology until such time as 
the U.S. trade representative certifies that the E.U. has a 
transparent, science-based, and fair regulatory process for approving 
agricultural biotechnology products.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 13, I released a report, Seeds of Opportunity, 
that reviewed the benefits, risks, and oversight of agricultural 
biotechnology. What I found is that biotechnology is safe and has 
incredible potential to enhance nutrition, feed a growing world 
population, open up new markets for farmers, and reduce the 
environmental impact of farming. Its potential benefits are limited 
only by the imagination and resourcefulness of our scientists.
  However, despite an unblemished record of safety, this technology has 
come under attack from well-financed activist groups who have created 
an atmosphere of fear in Europe. Europe's political leaders have 
capitalized on these concerns to promote protectionist regulatory 
policies that have shut out American farm products from European 
markets. In a free-trade environment, trade decisions should be 
science-based, as World Trade Organization rules stipulate.
  I think it is worth noting that no new agricultural biotechnology 
product has been approved in Europe for over 18 months. American 
researchers and farmers need to know that they will have a market for 
their products. The U.S. trade office should ensure that access to 
existing markets for agricultural products is maintained and that 
international agreements are neutral with respect to the products of 
agricultural biotechnology.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not see the point in moving ahead with the U.S.-
E.U. Consultative Group while the E.U. continues to persist with 
protectionist policies that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of 
WTO rules. This amendment sends a strong message to the E.U. that the 
United States will not tolerate E.U. foot-dragging that hurts U.S. 
farmers and an emerging biotechnology industry. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. 
Chairman, I understand that with the extent of this bill and with the 
fact that we do go beyond just eliminating the funding that this 
amendment may very well go beyond the scope of our rule on this bill. I 
hereby withdraw my amendment and hope to have the merits of the 
legislation considered by this House, by the President and the 
administration and, most importantly, by the European Union in a truly 
timely manner.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of yielding to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) knows, 
illegal immigration into the ninth district of Georgia has skyrocketed 
in recent years. North Georgia has quickly become a destination for 
people entering this country illegally. Word has spread throughout the 
communities that jobs are plentiful in our labor-intensive industries.
  What once might have been called a trickle of illegal aliens into 
North Georgia has turned into an outright flood. A recent study 
completed by Georgia State University concludes that in Hall County, 
Georgia, where I live, there could be an illegal immigration population 
of over 65,000.
  This is especially alarming because of the overall population of the 
country is only 120,000. The schools, health care, delivery system, and 
judicial system have all seen a dramatic influx of residents who do not 
have legal status in our country. This has had a drastic and 
debilitating impact on the social services that our community is able 
to provide.

                              {time}  2215

  But despite the growing problem of illegal immigration in my 
district, I am happy to report renewed optimism. The Quick Response 
Teams, or QRTs which the gentleman and his subcommittee have developed, 
have proved to be a tremendous success where fully implemented. The 
city of Dalton, Georgia, which is one of the cities most affected by 
illegal immigration in my district, has benefited greatly from the 
presence of a QRT team.
  These teams of INS agents work with State and local law enforcement 
to identify, apprehend, and remove criminal and illegal aliens. I thank 
the gentleman for his leadership on the interior enforcement of our 
immigration laws. Too few Members have had the courage to substantively 
address this issue. It is my hope that we can expand these successful 
QRTs to other communities that are dealing with this problem such as 
Hall County, Georgia. I would simply ask for the gentleman's commitment 
and for his continued support of interior enforcement of our 
immigration laws and especially the Quick Response Teams.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for reminding us of this enormous problem in his district. I know of 
few districts that are impacted as significantly as the gentleman's 
district in Georgia. In fact, we included an additional $11 million in 
the bill which was not requested by the administration to expand this 
QRT program around the country. In fact, I want to tell the gentleman 
that he is the inspiration for the QRT program, and I appreciate the 
problem he is facing in his home area, as well as other areas of the 
country; and I assure the gentleman that we will be happy to work with 
him as we proceed to address the problem.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

[[Page 12365]]


  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise to congratulate the subcommittee for increasing the funding 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. It is a very cost-effective 
Federal-State, public-private partnership that helps small and midsized 
American manufacturers modernize to compete in the global marketplace. 
As one of my small manufacturers said to me, it is fine if you vote for 
China trade. Please, just keep these critical dollars in place so we 
can keep up with the pace of change in technology and manufacturing 
organizations, stay competitive, and win.
  Another of my manufacturers said to me, CONN/STEP, which is this MEP 
program in Connecticut, is the only program helping us assure the 
survivability, the viability, and the profitability of our small shops. 
He and others have stressed how they rely on CONN/STEP for its 
remarkable, broad network of top professionals. No individual small 
manufacturer could develop such a network. He or she has neither the 
amount of work nor the time it takes to develop such a sophisticated 
network of interested engineering and technical experts. Yet, these top 
people are at the beck and call of the small manufacturers in my 
district because of the CONN/STEP program, one of the more than 70 MEP 
manufacturing centers throughout America. They are, indeed, in every 
State and in Puerto Rico.
  My small manufacturers have depended on CONN/STEP to help them 
achieve 9000 certification, design new products, recruit new high-
skilled employees, understand and adapt lean manufacturing techniques 
and, in general, keep pace with the truly incredible rate of change in 
manufacturing techniques and processes to improve precision and 
productivity and stay competitive. MEP funds are critical to the future 
of small manufacturing, and without strong small manufacturers, our 
global manufacturers cannot survive.
  So I thank the chairman and his subcommittee for their 
foresightedness in increasing those funds.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her remarks. The bill does provide $104.8 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the gentlewoman has 
been one of the biggest supporters we have had, and we appreciate that.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, on tomorrow, the House will consider the Energy and 
Water Development appropriations bill. As was done for prior 
appropriations bills, we will be trying to develop a unanimous consent 
request that identifies the complete universe of amendments with time 
agreements on them. Previously, we had not attempted this until we were 
halfway through the consideration of the bill. There was proper 
criticism that debate on early amendments was unconstrained, but that 
debate on later amendments was constrained.
  In order to treat everyone the same, we are seeing if we can make an 
agreement at the beginning of consideration of this bill tomorrow. To 
do this will mean that we will need to know the universe of amendments 
on the Energy and Water Development bill prior to tomorrow. Therefore, 
I am asking all Members who may have an amendment to this bill to 
please file it at the desk and have it printed in the Record by the end 
of today.
  Also, if all Members who have amendments could contact the staff on 
the energy and water development subcommittee with a suggested time for 
debate on their amendments, we would be able to develop a unanimous 
consent with the necessary input. I would appreciate the cooperation of 
all Members in this regard. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are at the end of the process here, or close 
to it; but I do want to take a moment before we do get to the end of 
the bill to thank the Members for their courtesies and for being as 
brief as we could be under the circumstances. We have had a great 
number of amendments, as all Members know, and the Members have been 
cooperative, and I appreciate that very, very much.
  Also, I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano), for being the gentleman that he is, my partner, if you 
will, on this bill. The teamwork with him has been heart-warming and, I 
think, fruitful.
  Lastly, I want to again say to our staff on both sides of the aisle 
how dependent we are upon them and how much we appreciate their hard 
work, trying to keep our tempers under control all the while supplying 
us with the information necessary to help with the amendments and the 
bill itself. We cannot say enough for the work of our staff on the 
committee and on our personal staffs, both minority and majority staff 
members. We appreciate them very much. We would not be here without 
them.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rush

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Rush:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

                 TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

                     Small Business Administration

              program for investment in microentrepreneurs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the PRIME Act (as added 
     by section 725 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-
     102)), to be derived by transfer from the aggregate amount 
     provided in this Act under the heading ``National Oceanic And 
     Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for 
     the National Weather Service), $15,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House on Friday, June 23, 
2000, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment to the Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill to authorize $15 
million for the PRIME Act. The PRIME Act was signed into law as part of 
the Financial Services Act in November of 1999, but yet has not 
received any funding. Funding for the PRIME Act will provide the SBA 
the opportunity to establish a microenterprise technical assistance and 
capacity-building grant program.
  Mr. Chairman, in our communities all across this country, there are 
small entrepreneurs with great ideas and aspirations toward furthering 
the business objectives to strengthen our commerce, but there are more 
than a few problems which they face. These entrepreneurs are usually 
unable to secure adequate funding, cannot market themselves to 
potential clients, are not educated with the business venture, and need 
the ability to lead their own lives.
  The PRIME Act will provide assistance in the form of grants to 
qualified organizations. Qualified organizations are microenterprises 
that are very small businesses, that typically have fewer than 10 
employees, and generally lack access to conventional loans, equity or 
other banking services. A qualified organization will be able to use 
these grants to provide training and technical assistance to 
disadvantaged entrepreneurs, provide training and capacity-building 
services to microenterprise development organizations and to aid in 
researching and developing the best practices in the field of 
microenterprise and technicals assistance programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the PRIME Act is necessary to help people start and 
maintain businesses, contribute to their own individual self-reliance, 
and to strengthen our commerce. If there was

[[Page 12366]]

ever a real solution to encourage people to work hard to control their 
own destiny, then certainly PRIME is the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
of the subcommittee, if at all possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of this particular amendment. As 
the gentleman knows, this amendment passed out of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services with unanimous support, bipartisan 
support. It passed the House in the conference committee 
overwhelmingly, but yet the subcommittee has not funded it. I would ask 
the chairman, if he would be so kind, to work in the conference 
committee, if this bill passes this House, to try to secure funding for 
the PRIME Act. Again, it has been endorsed and supported by the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and it has 
strong bipartisan support.
  With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would entertain a motion to 
withdraw this amendment if we could reach an understanding of some kind 
and if we can have some kind of consideration from the chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. This 
is an unauthorized program that has been requested, and given the 
spending constraints that we have been operating under, there are a lot 
of new programs that we just were not able to fund, this included. This 
is certainly not alone; there are a lot of other programs that we were 
not able to find money to fund.
  I am really concerned about the gentleman's amendment, though, 
because it would cut the National Weather Service by some $15 million. 
The administration has already said that we have underfunded the 
Weather Service; and yet this would cut another $15 million from such 
things as providing tornado warnings and flash flood warnings, winter 
storm warnings, hurricane warnings and the like. So I would hope that 
the gentleman could see his way clear to withdraw the amendment, and we 
can discuss the PRIME program as we proceed to final conclusion on the 
bill; and I would appreciate the gentleman's advice as we do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) has 
expired.
  Does the gentleman seek to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to adding 1 minute on both sides?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would briefly yield, I 
made a misstatement, the program is authorized. I said it was 
unauthorized. It is authorized, in fact.
  Mr. RUSH. Well, since it is authorized, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman change his determination?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, we have been under 
severe funding constraints, and I will be happy to work with the 
gentleman as we proceed to see if there is some way to do that.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I also want to join the chairman, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), in thanking both our staffs 
for the work they have done on this bill, and to thank him personally 
for his treatment of this ranking member, and the diplomatic way in 
which he deals with me. We have a special relationship.
  I also want to reiterate to the chairman, as I said before, that I 
will be supporting this bill tonight. Many Members on this side of the 
aisle will not. I will support the bill with the intent to continue to 
work with the chairman to make this the bill that I think it should be 
when this process is over.
  However, I have to be honest, that unless some very dramatic changes 
take place in this bill, the second time around the gentleman will see 
even less support on this side. I do that understanding the gentleman's 
desire to work with me and to work with us in making sure this becomes 
a better bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Vitter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 367, 
noes 34, answered ``present'' 7, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--367

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers

[[Page 12367]]


     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--34

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Farr
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Maloney (CT)
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Payne
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--7

     Blumenauer
     Dixon
     Frank (MA)
     Lantos
     Larson
     Meehan
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Blagojevich
     Campbell
     Cook
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Shuster
     Talent
     Vento
     Waxman

                              {time}  2251

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Messrs. HILL of Montana, BLUNT, HOLT, ALLEN, 
CLEMENT, SHERMAN, WEXLER and CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member supports and is deeply 
appreciative of the efforts of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice and State, to address the many concerns within their 
jurisdiction. However, this Member rises to address a particular 
concern that is considered by the legislation before this body today. 
In particular, it is important to understand the security risks faced 
by U.S. embassy personnel and other public servants who are tasked with 
advancing America's interests overseas.
  Following the devastating embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) was created. This Panel's 
recent report concluded that the U.S. overseas presence is near a state 
of crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information 
technology, outmoded administrative and human resource practices and 
poor allocation of resources threaten to cripple our nation's overseas 
capabilities. The percentage of the U.S. budget devoted to 
international affairs has been declining for four decades. The 
international affairs budget is now about 20% less in today's dollars 
than it was on average during the late 1970's and 1980's.
  The legislation before this body today recommends a level for the 
Department of State and international broadcasting at $6.6 billion. 
Although below the Administration's request, it represents a $300 
million increase over last year's enacted level. However, in a number 
of key areas recommended appropriations still fall far short of what is 
needed.
  However, this Member would emphasize that he has serious doubts about 
the level of this Administration's commitment and progress in improving 
security for our overseas facilities. In past years the 
Administration's request for Embassy security funding has been woefully 
inadequate. This year, the Appropriations committee fully funded the 
Department's FY 2001 request of over $1 billion for Embassy security 
($410 million for diplomatic and consular programs and $648 million for 
the embassy security, construction and maintenance account.) However, 
the American Foreign Service Association is urging that Congress 
appropriate $200 million more than the Administration requested for 
overseas security. AFSA notes that 80 percent of our 260 posts abroad 
do not even meet current, much less Inman, security standards. With an 
additional $100 million the Department could more than double the 
number of posts with upgraded perimeter security. The other $100 
million could provide enhanced protection from exploding glass windows 
at posts which are considered highly vulnerable. Otherwise, the level 
of precaution will not be reached under current circumstances for at 
least five years.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a crying need for wholesale reform of the way 
our Embassies are financed and constructed, starting with changing 
OMB's scoring rules to allow lease/purchase and lease/buyback 
arrangements. It defies logic to constrain the leasing of secure, 
modern diplomatic facilities only for arcane budgetary scoring 
reasons--yet that is the case. The OPAP report provides an excellent 
series of recommendations that could help us build new secure 
facilities more quickly, which the Administration should seek to 
implement in their entirety as soon as possible.
  Another area in which additional funds are needed is the capital 
investment fund which provides for new information technology and 
capital equipment. The Congress authorized $150 million for this 
purpose, even though the Administration requested only $97 million. 
Regrettably, the Committee provided only $79.7 million, which is below 
even the current year's level. The OPAP report correctly notes that 
this is a critical need if we are to bring our representation abroad 
into the modern age.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member notes that on May 26th the 
President signed H.R. 3707 (P.L. 106-212), introduced by this Member, 
which authorizes $75 million for the construction of a new facility for 
the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). The current AIT is a 
dilapidated, rundown collection of buildings, or in some cases Quonset 
huts, that fails to meet even minimal security standards. The current 
AIT also fails to provide the necessary facility to adequately 
represent our country or to reflect the importance our country attaches 
to our long-standing, critically important relations with Taiwan. 
Construction of a new, secure facility will be an important indication 
that the U.S. presence will be maintained on Taiwan through the AIT for 
as long as it takes to assure that any reunification of China and 
Taiwan will be only by peaceful, non-coercive means.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member hopes the Appropriations Committee 
will in the future note the importance of this legislation, and that in 
turn the Department of State will act quickly to begin design and 
construction of a new facility.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? If not, under the rule 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4690) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 529, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Chair announces that this vote will be followed by four 5-minute 
votes on motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays

[[Page 12368]]

195, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Herger
       

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Blagojevich
     Campbell
     Cook
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hinchey
     Jenkins
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Ryun (KS)
     Shows
     Shuster
     Talent
     Vento
     Waxman

                              {time}  2308

  Mr. TOOMEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BECERRA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 326 I inadvertently voted 
``present.'' I intended to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________