Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Chapter XII is a specialized form of bankruptcy relief only available to family farmers. It was first extended on a temporary basis in 1986 to respond to the particularized needs of farmers in financial distress as part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act. Following its initial extension in 1993 to September 30, 1998, it has been further extended on several occasions and is currently due to expire on July 1 in the year 2000. As we know, the House more than a year ago passed H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 313 to 108. As one of its key provisions, H.R. 833 would make Chapter XII a permanent form of bankruptcy relief for family farmers. The Senate counterpart to H.R. 833, which also passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 83 to 14, contains a nearly identical provision. While significant progress has been made in reconciling the House and Senate bills, final action is still required. As we await final passage of H.R. 833, it is clear that certain sectors of the farming industry continue to suffer financial distress resulting from devastating weather conditions or other factors. We also note, however, that the current extension of Chapter XII is due to expire on July 1. If Chapter XII is not available, farmers will be forced to seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code's other alternatives. No other form of bankruptcy relief works quite as well for farmers as does Chapter XII. Chapter VII would require the farmer to liquidate his or her farming operation. Many farmers would simply be ineligible to file under Chapter XIII because of its debt limits. Chapter XI is an expensive process that does not accommodate the special needs of farmers. H.R. 4718 would simply extend Chapter XII for a 3-month period, which expires on October 1, 2000. This extension will provide important protections, at least on an interim basis, to family farmers. Upon final passage and enactment of H.R. 833, however, Chapter XII would become a permanent fixture of the Bankruptcy Code. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his continuing leadership on this matter and long-standing commitment to family farmers. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4718. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has worked endlessly on this legislation. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4718) to extend for 3 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4718, the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R., 3048) to amend section 879 of title 18, United States Code, to provide clearer coverage over threats against former Presidents and members of their families, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3048, the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, was introduced by the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and is the product of close collaboration between the gentleman from Florida and the staff of the Subcommittee on Crime and the Secret Service. The bill addresses several problems that the Director of the Secret Service raised at an oversight hearing held by the Subcommittee on Crime last year. The subcommittee reported the bill favorably by voice vote in March and the full Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill favorably by voice vote last month. The principal purpose of the bill is to clarify the Secret Service's jurisdiction to investigate threats made against former Presidents or their families and the immediate families of the President, Vice President, President-elect, the Vice President-elect and major candidates for the offices of President or Vice President. Under current law, Mr. Speaker, for the Secret Service to investigate a threat made against one of these persons, that person must be receiving Secret Service protection at the time the threat is made. Should a former President decline Secret Service protection, as has occurred in the past, threats made against him would not be Federal crimes and so could not be investigated by the Secret Service. This problem will be exacerbated in the future by a decision Congress made in 1994 that Secret Service protection for former Presidents and their spouses terminate 10 years after the President leaves office. To remedy this problem, H.R. 3048 will amend current law to make it a Federal crime which the Secret Service is authorized to investigate for any person to threaten any current or former President, the current Vice President, the President-elect, or Vice President-elect, or the immediate family of such person, regardless of whether the Secret Service is protecting the person at the time the threat is made. This section of the bill will expand current Secret Service authority so that it may investigate threats made against the immediate family of major candidates for the office of President or Vice President. Under current law, the Secret Service may only investigate threats made against the candidate and his or her spouse. The bill will also clarify the Agency's authority to plan security for events of national significance such as an economic summit of G7 ministers or a meeting of the WTO, for example. In recent years, the President has directed the Service to participate in the design, planning and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance. In some cases, however, none of the persons traditionally protected by the Service may be present at these events or present at all times during the event. Therefore, the Service's authority to coordinate the security for these events is unclear. As the Service is the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world when it comes to expertise in planning security operations, it is appropriate that this expertise be brought to bear in the planning for events of this magnitude. This bill will make that authority clear. H.R. 3048 also authorizes the Secret Service to use administrative subpoenas in limited situations. Administrative subpoenas are subpoenas issued by a law enforcement agency rather than a United States court. Administrative subpoenas are authorized by the Attorney General under current law for investigations of drug crime, Federal health care offenses, or cases involving child abuse and child sexual exploitation. The Service has requested administrative subpoena authority for investigations of threats made against the President and its other protectees. There is no question that if the Service is delayed for several days in obtaining a subpoena it needs, such as when the courts are closed over a weekend or during a Federal holiday, the trail of a potential assassin could be lost. It seems reasonable to me to allow the Service to issue these types of subpoenas, but only in threat cases. This bill would give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue such a subpoena, but only upon the determination of the Director of the Secret Service that a threat against one of its protectees is imminent. Further, the power is limited to requesting only the production of records and other tangible things. The subpoena may not be used to obtain the testimony of any person, except for the person who is the custodian of the records for an organization. This bill also creates a means by which a citizen can challenge an administrative subpoena in the courts, something for which current law does not specifically provide. The Secret Service is one of our Nation's oldest and best law enforcement agencies. We need to give it the statutory authority and investigative tools it needs to do the job that Congress has given it. This bill will help do that. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Attorney General and the Justice Department by way of this amendment is again attempting to insert the tobacco industry smack dab in the bull's eye of the target, and I guess that the command will be ``fire when ready.'' The tobacco industry has become the convenient and consistent whipping boy in this Congress as long as I have been here; and with each session, the opponents appear to grow more vocal and more determined to drive the final death knell into the coffin of tobacco. Nine or 10 years ago, and I told the chairman this some time ago, I had the privilege of going through the Lorillard plant in my district; and what I learned as a result of that visit that day was the dollars in taxes that they pay, local, State and Federal. I was educated. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco. If we keep fooling around with this, we are going to drive the tobacco industry into the coffin, and then the coffin finally into the ground, and those coffers that realize millions and millions of dollars directly from tobacco will either dry up, or, in the alternative, we will have to find other sources of revenue, and then you will start hearing people kicking and screaming and crying, what happened to the tobacco money? Well, the tobacco money was gone because of the consistent buggy whipping that has been on across their backs emanating from this very Chamber, and one of these days, Mr. Chairman, it is going to come back to haunt us. I will admit, I do not come to the well completely objective, because I represent growers and manufacturers; but let us be careful as we go about this.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, protection that the United States Patent Office offers to America's high-tech products protects the markets of their creators in this country and form the basis for obtaining patent protection abroad to allow these products to enter and compete in foreign markets, in other words, Mr. Chairman, creating high-wage jobs and promoting American exports. Now, I had planned to reduce this bill by less than 1/2 of 1 percent across the board. I repeat, less than 1/2 of 1 percent was my initial goal. The parliamentarians ruled that out of order. And I am not being critical of the parliamentarians, they were simply doing their work, but by doing their work they forced me to then pick and choose; and that is what I had to do. My amendment would increase funding for the Patent and Trademark Office by $133,808,000, which would bring the appropriations for the agency in line with the President's budget submission. This is, by our calculations, still $113 million short of what the PTO's budget should be based on its incoming fee revenue. The amendment is balanced by the spending reduction in other areas, which the Congressional Budget Office has assured us is neutral with respect to budget authority and outlays. I have great respect for the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky and his able ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from New York. They worked very favorably with us on this, and I acknowledge the difficulties which they and others have faced in bringing this bill to the floor. That said, however, I emphatically believe that the Patent and Trademark Office is a Federal priority that contributes in an overwhelmingly positive way to our national economy. The mark in this bill simply does not do the agency justice, especially in light of the fact that patent applications are increasing by 12 percent and trademark filings by another 40 percent. Given this workload, and the current funding level contemplated by H.R. 4690, the agency will be forced to deal with manpower shortages and delays in implementing modernization efforts. Patents and trademarks will issue more slowly, which will cost this country profits, growth and jobs. My amendment is important to the American high-tech industry, the e- commerce revolution that is driving the United States economy. While I would prefer that this agency be allowed to retain all of the fees which it collects from its operations, I am willing to accept the current figure with my amendment. Again, with my amendment, Mr. Chairman, the PTO is still denied another $113 million, which it is expected to generate in user fees in fiscal year 2001. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should note that the Information Technology Industry Council is scoring this vote in its high-tech voting guide, and I will be submitting for the Record ITI correspondence, along with other letters of support, including those from the ABA and the National Association of Manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, if I may finally say to my colleagues, we all need to know how many tax dollars are in the PTO. Not one brown penny. They are all user fees to be used exclusively to maintain and operate the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Chairman, the documents I just referred to are as follows: Information Technology Industry Council, June 21, 2000. Hon. Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Coble: I am writing to thank you for sponsoring an amendment to reverse the Appropriations Committee's diversion of an additional $134 million in Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) user fees over and above the $113 million already diverted in the Administration's budget request. ITI anticipates scoring the amendment in our High Tech Voting Guide. ITI is the association of leading U.S. providers of information technology products and services. We advocate growing the economy through innovation and support free- market policies. ITI members had worldwide revenues exceeding $460 billion in 1999 and employ more than 1.2 million people in the United States. We use the High-Tech Voting Guide to measure Congressional support for the information technology industry and policies that foster the success of the digital economy. At the end of the 106th Congress, key votes will be analyzed to assign a ``score'' to every Member of Congress. ITI's member companies already oppose the now longstanding practice of diverting PTO user fees into the general treasury and using a self-funding agency to subsidize other government operations. Unfortunately, the additional diversions approved last week by the Appropriations Committee will effectively cut 25% of the PTO's budget when the number of patent applications is growing at an unprecedented rate. The resulting increases in application pendency and decreases in quality of patents issued will act like a bottleneck on the new economy, especially in the growth areas of software and e-commerce inventions. We urge all Members of Congress to support innovation in the new economy by voting for your amendment. Thank you for your leadership and please do not hesitate to contact ITI if we can be of assistance. Best regards, Phillip Bond, Senior Vice President.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very spirited debate. I thank everyone. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their courtesy. I appreciate everyone who has contributed. A very brief history lesson, Mr. Chairman. In 1982, patent fees were increased 400 percent with the assurance by the administration and the Congress, ``Don't worry, PTO. Keep every nickel you collect.'' In 1991, the patent fees were increased 67 percent to be fully self-sufficient. ``Nobody is going to be coming tapping with your user fees, PTO. Do not worry about it.'' It has been suggested that there has been no diversion. If there is no diversion from the PTO, we would not be here today. I am not down on Census and I am not down on statistics, but this is a day of choice. Sometimes, or strike that, oftentimes in this Chamber we are called upon to make hard choices. Today is one of those days. I opt for the Patent and Trademark Office. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule that is under consideration and urge all of my colleagues to join me. In addition, I must voice my support of the U.S. Copyright Office. While great efforts were made in funding this bill, I urge my colleagues to restore the minimum necessary funding which the Office requires for its operations on behalf of the public interest during the House-Senate conference. Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee retains jurisdiction over copyright law. I think I speak for all who are privileged to serve on this committee by acknowledging that we could not function effectively without the assistance of the Copyright Office. The Office works with our constituents--individuals as well as businesses and the high tech community--who register original works of authorship for protection under title 17 of the U.S. Code. The advice and counsel afforded the Congress by the Register's policy staff have been indispensable in our efforts to develop good copyright law through the years. The United States is the world leader in the development and export of intellectual property, including copyrighted works. We cannot take the sustenance of this vital component of our national economy for granted; and as such, we cannot take the services of the Copyright Office for granted. I have great respect for our appropriators, and I acknowledge that they have an unenviable task. That said, the cuts contemplated in the bill before us are based on erroneous assumptions. To begin with, the Copyright Act prescribes a two-year process by which new fees are established. The Office raised fees only last July. In addition, it is in the process of reviewing a new fee schedule which, if approved by Congress, will take effect in 2002. In light of this background, Mr. Speaker, the cuts set forth in this bill are untenable. A full $5-million hit will result in a 38 percent reduction in the net appropriations of the Office. In lay terms, this translates into a 27 percent staff reduction, or 130 employees. Again, the Office cannot raise fees until 2002 at the earliest, so the revenue cannot be made up or redirected from elsewhere. This would include tapping the so-called ``No Year Account'' of roughly $2 million, which is being held to offset expected deficits in 2002. Even if the Office uses these funds, there will still be staff reductions totaling 78 workers in the upcoming fiscal year, and another 52 workers in 2002. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about all of $5 million for a government entity that provides critical services to the Congress and the public. If we are to continue as the world leader in the development and export of intellectual property we must ensure that the Copyright Office is adequately funded. It is my greatest hope that upon the meeting of the Legislative Branch conference, they will have the ability to re-visit this issue and fully restore Copyright Office funding.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege to recognize our guest pastor today who is from my district. He serves the Level Cross United Methodist Church in Level Cross, North Carolina. I said to him yesterday, ``I address my minister as Preacher. Ken, are you comfortable with that endearing title?'' He said, ``That is an ascribed title, not earned. I like it.'' So, Preacher, it is good to have you with us here today. Your family is in the gallery. I know your parishioners are watching today.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, the Los Alamos security problem is not a trivial matter. An official familiar with the investigation was quoted last weekend as having said hopefully the drives never left the secured area; if we believe this version, we will then be convinced that Santa Claus is a viable being and, finally, to complete the hat trick, the Tooth Fairy will trot across the stage. If, after this, we remain skeptical, we would be well advised, Madam Speaker, to apply the admonishing lyrics of an old Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs bluegrass tune entitled, ``I am going to sleep with one eye open from now on.'' Obviously, those charged with guarding the hen house at Los Alamos kept no eyes open, and the fox was free to roam at will. Corrective action must be forthcoming to resolve this inexcusable breach of security. The potential detriment imposed upon our country may be irreparable. I sit as a Member of no House committee with direct jurisdiction over the Department of Energy; however, I have been more than a casual observer of the shoddy security measures at our Nation's nuclear lab. I have previously crossed swords with the Department of Energy. Some recent years ago that Department was directed by a Secretary who enjoyed taking frequent trips, international and domestic, subsidized, of course, by taxpayers. She insisted as well that she be surrounded by attendants who made up her road show entourage who traveled as well at taxpayers expense. I took her to task for this excessive travel, and several DOE employees and officials expressed thanks for my concern because their Department was being embarrassed. Embarrassment is being felt yet again, but I distinguish the abusive travel practices with the present Los Alamos problem. The former involved a Secretary whose attitude was one of indifferent disregard to prudent management practices. The Los Alamos exposure involves national security. Madam Speaker, even though there is no Cold War, many Americans, some who sat in this very Chamber, believe that since there is no Cold War, there is therefore no threat. There are, indeed, threats, Madam Speaker; and the Los Alamos problem could very well be nurturing a significant one. Let us clean up this mess before it is too late.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, with health care reform taking the congressional stage once again, I would like to recognize a constituent and friend of mine from the Sixth District of North Carolina, who will be a key player in the debate. We are proud to announce that a resident of the Sixth District was recently selected as the new president of the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU). Mr. Michael E. Matznick was sworn in as NAHU's president for the 2000-2001 term by Alan Katz, the outgoing president. Michael has been a member of NAHU since 1980. He has served as president of the North Carolina state chapter of NAHU and received its distinguished service award. Michael joined NAHU's board as the vice president of the Southeast region in 1996. Michael is the president of Med/Flex Benefits Center, Inc., a firm founded in 1986 that specializes in individual and group health insurance, employee benefits plans and Section 125. He has a degree in business administration from Illinois State University, and lives in Greensboro, North Carolina, with his wife Carol and their two sons. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, I would like to congratulate Michael Matznick for being selected for this national position. We wish him the best of luck as he leads the National Association of Health Underwriters into the twenty first century.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, with the 2000 Major League Soccer season in full swing, I would like to recognize a school from the Sixth District of North Carolina that captured a state soccer championship recently. Greensboro Day School has been crowned the 2000 North Carolina girls' high school soccer champions among our state's independent schools. Greensboro Day School captured the girls' soccer 3-A NCISAA state title. In their sixth championship in the past six years, the Bengals claimed the title with a decisive 5-0 victory over Charlotte Christian High School. Greensboro Day school also claimed the PACIS conference championship with a 7-0-1 record in conference. We congratulate Carley Allen, Elizabeth Lancaster, Mary Dickinson, Emily Crowe, Suzanne Cole, Nancy Calhoun, Shannon Burbine, Jenny Gilrain, Jen Pool, Blair DeGraw, Kirsten Paul, Sarah Cantrell, Dana Murphy, Clarence Mills, Merrill McCarty, Rachel Wolff, Michelle Kuzma, Ashley Bergin, Jessica McComb, Rebecca Barger, Meredith McAdams, and Angela Berry. They were led by Head Coach Michael Burroughs and his assistants Mike Johnston, Lynn Pantousco, and Patra Glavin. The Sixth District of North Carolina is proud of this team from Guilford County for their hard work and dedication. Congratulations to the girls from Greensboro Day School for a job well done.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend him and his very fine leadership on this, what I have called, traditionally, the most onerous tax in the Code. It is a disincentive against savings, a disincentive against investing. I have heard countless presentations from this floor yesterday and today about horror stories where people who are not wealthy by any means have been devastated as a result of the imposition of the estate tax. Call it the estate tax, call it the inheritance tax, but call it what it is: the death tax. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and our Democrat friends that have supported us in this bill. This is a bill that is long, long overdue and should be enacted; and I urge its support.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome Father Jim Scherer from Greensboro, North Carolina as our guest chaplain today, although I did not sponsor Father Jim. Father Jim was sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who this session has, in turn, sponsored Father Jim's nephew. I am delighted to welcome Father Jim Scherer to the House today. Father Jim serves 3 parishes back in the 6th district of North Carolina. Our Lady of Grace where he conducts weekday mass; and Father Jim, I had the pleasure of addressing the student body at Our Lady of Grace last year; St. Paul the Apostle, and St. Pios for Sunday masses. In addition to that, Father Jim also served as a marriage and family therapist in private practice in Greensboro. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in extending a warm welcome to Father Jim Scherer as our guest chaplain today.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1752 contains several provisions that are needed to improve the Federal court system. It is designed to improve administration and procedures, eliminate operational inefficiencies, and reduce operating expenses. The provisions contained in H.R. 1752 address administrative, financial, personnel, organizational, and technical changes that are needed by the Article III Federal courts and their supporting agencies. These provisions are designed to have a positive effect on the operations of the Federal courts and enhance the delivery of justice in the Federal system. The manager's amendment makes no substantive changes. However, on the advice of legislative counsel, certain technical and conforming changes have been made to H.R. 1752. Furthermore, after consultation with the Committee on the Budget, it became clear that the provision regarding the civil asset forfeiture would require unanticipated expenditures. Therefore, it was taken out of H.R. 1752 and will be reconsidered in the future. H.R. 1752, Mr. Speaker, is necessary legislation for the proper functioning of our United States courts. It is nonpartisan and noncontroversial, and I urge the House to pass H.R. 1752. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for his generous words. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member, and all Members of the subcommittee for their assistance in formulating this bill and moving it forward to the House. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1752.