F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there are some Members in this Chamber that seem to have forgotten history. We were at war in Vietnam when the hearings on the impeachment of President Nixon occurred. That was because of the serious offenses that were alleged against President Nixon. Today we are proceeding because of the serious offenses alleged against President Clinton. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How much time was charged to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for the speech of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is moved, I intend to vote against it so that I may be recognized to control time under the hour rule in order to continue debate on House Resolution 611.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 4820, the Save the International Space Station Act of 1998. This is a straightforward bill that contains several provisions that will restore accountability to the program while preserving our commitment to our international partners in the Space Station program. More importantly, it lays the groundwork to help prevent future cost growth and schedule delays by putting NASA on a track to solve systemic problems. The bill should be non-controversial. Most members have seen these provisions before. This legislation was drafted around the bipartisan Sensenbrenner-Brown amendment to the Civilian Space Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 and 1999, which the Committee on Science adopted and the House of Representatives passed last year. Basically, the bill precludes additional payments to the Russian Space Agency to meet its existing obligations unless Congress concurs that additional payments serve the taxpayer's interest. It requires the Administration to develop a contingency plan and report that plan to Congress for removing each element of the Russian contribution from the critical path for assembling the International Space Station. It does contain two new provisions from the Senate, which were worked out on a bipartisan basis. The first of these new provisions is a total cost cap on the program. The International Space Station has never had a legislatively imposed cap on the total cost of the program before. The Senate has made such a cap a priority and the bill contains a measure worked out between the Senate and the Administration. The second new provision concerns cross-waiver authority under which NASA will negotiate agreements with other Station partners to reduce our liability to one another in the event of problems with the Space Station. Ultimately, this measure must be passed for the Space Station to be assembled and operated in space. By passing this bill sooner rather than later, Congress can do its part to contain future cost growth and put this program back on track towards developing and operating a world-class scientific laboratory in space.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1274, the Technology Administration Act of 1997. The bill includes a variety of provisions that will allow the Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to move forward with their missions. The bill establishes in law the requirement that the Department of Commerce must consult with Congress before reprogramming funding for, or from, any NIST or TA programs. The bill further requires that Commerce must consult with Congress before conducting a major reorganization. I view these two new changes to permanent law as vital to the Science Committee's ability to continue its oversight on the programs of TA and NIST. The bill also includes a Sense of Congress on the Year 2000 computer problem. This Sense of Congress is intended to continue the pressure on the Department of Commerce to fix its Year 2000 problem before it is too late. The Science Committee has included similar provisions in all its House-passed authorizations, and I think they send a powerful signal to the Administration that Congress is taking this issue very seriously. The bill also authorizes two new awards for the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Awards Program. These new awards in healthcare and education were included in H.R. 1274, as passed by the House last year. Additionally, the bill lifts the six-year sunset requirement on Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program centers. Again, similar language passed the House last year. The bill contains language establishing the Office of Space Commercialization. The office has existed for a decade, but has been without a legislative charter. The language will not expand the office's responsibilities, but will give it a clear statutorily defined mission. This language passed the House last April as part of H.R. 1275, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Bill. The bill also contains a new program to bring science and math teachers into NIST's laboratories during the summer months. The program is intended to improve teacher understanding of science through direct experience working along side or observing some of the world's best scientists at one of our leading national laboratories. The program will require no new facilities and the bill includes no new authorizations of funds for the program, it will be carried out within NIST's existing laboratory budget. The bill also creates for one year the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCOT). EPSCOT was funded last year and has been included in both the House and Senate Commerce, Justice, States Appropriations bills. It will receive funding in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. The language in H.R. 1274 creates guidelines for the program. It also specifies that the program is only established for FY 1999. Finally, I would like to remark on what is not in the bill. The bill contains no authorization's of appropriations. While H.R. 1274 passed the House last year in advance of the FY 1998 appropriations process, and included authorization for TA and NIST for FY 1998 and 1999 totaling over a billion dollars, the bill, however, returned from the Senate after the FY 1999 appropriations process had all but concluded, and therefore the authorizations have been removed from the bill. Additionally, this bill does not in any way authorize the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP was reformed and authorized in H.R. 1274 when it passed the House in 1997. In negotiations with the Senate, no agreement could be reached on a reasonable funding and reform package, and, therefore, all provisions dealing with ATP were stripped from the bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella for her hard work on this measure, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1274 and vote to send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Gerald Solomon, the distinguished gentleman from New York, as he prepares to retire after 20 years of service to the country and his constituents, the last four years as Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Jerry Solomon and I came to Congress together in 1978. In his ten terms representing New York's 22nd District in the House, his colleagues and his constituents have come to know him as a positive force for common sense legislation. Jerry's legacy is one of military preparedness, fiscal responsibility, strong foreign policy and government accountability. As a former United States Marine, Jerry brought a unique knowledge of the necessities of military readiness to his legislative agenda. In the 1980's, he worked to strengthen our armed services, joining other exemplary leaders such as Ronald Reagan in helping to ensure a peaceful end to the Cold War and the United States' position of strength in the post-Cold War world. His work with the North Atlantic Assembly and his mastery of NATO issues proved an invaluable asset to the House as we considered foreign affairs and national security issues. But Jerry Solomon's importance to the House does not stop there. His colleagues know him as a Member who recognized the patriotism and dignity of this country's veterans and fought tirelessly to see that the government provided them the rights and benefits they so richly deserve. Jerry Solomon also devoted significant energy to securing accountability in our government, taking a principal role in creating the line item veto legislation passed by Congress in 1996. And it is important legislation like this that passes through Jerry's hands each day. As Chairman of the Rules Committee, he continues to dedicate himself to providing for the smooth movement of the many and varied pieces of legislation that come before the House in each session. His shoes will undoubtedly be hard to fill. I join my colleagues in wishing a Jerry a fond farewell and a successful retirement. We aspire to continue his level of leadership and commitment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the question before us in this motion to recommit is whether we should make ourselves slaves to the clock or attempt to find out the truth. And let there be no mistake about it, nobody's conduct is under investigation here but that of the President of the United States. And if he had not committed those things that the allegations have sent forth to us by the Independent Counsel, we would not be faced with discharging our awesome constitutional responsibilities. This should not be a race against the clock. And do not take my word for it, take the word of a respected senior Democratic Member on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), who said yesterday, ``I have had a lot of experience with investigations. Time limits create large incentives for delay.'' Do not give anybody an incentive to delay and string this out by establishing an arbitrary time limit. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have said that this will be a never-ending investigation. They have not read the twentieth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The 105th Congress goes out of business on January 3, 1999. This resolution expires with the 105th Congress and would have to be renewed by a vote of the House on the opening day of the 106th Congress. So all of the arguments over here have been about just 3 days. I think that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), in following the Rodino precedent, and just almost adopting the Rodino resolution word for word, has done the right thing. February 6, 1974, was the last time this House of Representatives had to do the sacred duty of commencing an impeachment inquiry. The gentleman from Illinois has patterned this resolution after the resolution introduced by Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey. There was bipartisanship on the Republican side of the aisle in commencing an impeachment inquiry along exactly the same lines against a Republican President. That vote was 404 to 4. I would ask my Democratic friends to be as bipartisan today as the Republicans were back in 1974 by rejecting the motion to recommit and joining with us to discharge our constitutional duty. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and insight of the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown). I think that we are quite proud of the fact, not only was this report completed on time and on budget, which we like to do in the Committee on Science, but also this is one of the first congressional initiatives on any major topic looking into the future that is our own product rather than a reaction from something that has come from the Executive Branch or private industry or the university. I would like to see the Congress continue in this type of creative venture where we look at how we can better the type of quality of life that we will be bequeathing to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of this report. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 578) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the print of the Committee on Science entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy'' should serve as a framework for future deliberations on congressional science policy and funding.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today in support of H. Res. 578, which asks the House to endorse the Science Committee's National Science Policy Study, produced by our friend and colleague from Michigan the Committee Vice Chairman (Mr. Ehlers). The study ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy'' is the result of over a year's work by the committee and reflects an approach to science policy that has earned the support of both sides of the aisle. We have all heard the expression ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well, the clear message of this report is that, while not exactly broke, America's science policy is nonetheless in need of some pretty significant maintenance. Mr. Speaker, this then is not a visionary document, but it is, I think, a document for visionaries. After all, that is what is scientists are, and it is important that we find ways to support them for the contributions they make to our national security, our health and our welfare, and this study succeeds in doing just that. In my view what makes this report different from other science policy reports published by various groups over the years, some of them very good, is the Committee on Science's intention to act on its recommendations in future oversight hearings in legislation. Indeed this report should not be seen as the end, but rather the beginning of a long process that will involve Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, universities and industry all working together. Mr. Speaker, this report has generated a great deal of excitement within the scientific community, and before concluding my remarks I would like to share with the House some statements in support of this document from our colleagues and in the Executive Branch. Dr. Neal Lane, the President's Science Adviser, said he found the report to be harmonious with the President's established science policy goals, and he commended it for underscoring the importance of sustaining and nurturing America's world-leading science and technology enterprise. Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation also praised the report noting its emphasis on the critical role of Federal support for fundamental research and especially merit based investments in university research. Doctor Colwell was also gratified that the report highlights the singular role that math, science and technology education play in any discussions of national science policy. Mr. Speaker, I insert the full text of these statements in the Record: Statement of Dr. Neal Lane In general, I find the Committee's report to be harmonious with the President's established science policy goals. I commend Representative Ehlers for underscoring the importance of sustaining and nurturing America's world-leading science and technology enterprise. Half of our economic productivity in the last half-century is attributable to technological innovation and the science that supports it. The report's recommendations on the importance of education concur with the President's views that the degree to which our nation flourishes in the 21st century will rest upon our success in developing a well-educated workforce able to embrace the rapid pace of technological change. I hope this report will serve as a catalyst for broad-based bipartisan Congressional support of the Administration's thoughtful investments across the entire science and technology portfolio. Such a partnership to stimulate scientific discovery and new technologies will take America into the new century well equipped for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I look forward to working with House Science Committee Vice Chairman Ehlers and other members of Congress to ensure that our national science policy keeps in step with a changing world.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of inquiry. At Monday's meeting of the Committee on the Judiciary, Investigative Counsel David Shippers informed the committee that the material received to date shows that the President may have committed 15 felonies. These alleged felonies were in the course of the President's successfully defeating Paula Jones' civil rights lawsuit, claims the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision said that she had the right to pursue. The President denies all these allegations. Obviously someone is telling the truth and someone is lying. The Committee on the Judiciary must be given the power to decide this issue. What is at stake here is the rule of law. Even the President of the United States has no right to break the law. If the House votes down this inquiry, in effect, it will say that even if President Clinton committed as many as 15 felonies, nothing will happen. The result will be a return to the imperial presidency of the Nixon era where the White House felt that the laws did not apply to them, since they never would be punished. That would be a national tragedy of immense consequences. Vote for the resolution. Let the Committee on the Judiciary try to find the truth.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 505) to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with respect to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for his answer. Madam Speaker, the legislation before us today demonstrates that the system works. Title I of the legislation satisfies a top priority for the entertainment industry and ensures that one of America's most valuable assets will continue to dominate in global markets. Title II of the bill brings to a close a 4-year effort to bring common sense, fairness and clarity to the copyright music licensing system. This victory for small business should make Congress proud. I urge a unanimous vote in favor of this agreement and this bill. Madam Speaker, I include in this part of the Record an exchange of correspondence between the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property and myself. The correspondence referred to is as follows: Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC, October 7, 1998. Hon. Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding the upcoming floor action on S. 505, a bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to extend the term of copyright, to provide for a music licensing exemption, and for other purposes. Among the negotiated portions included in the final version was a provision concerning the burden of proof in determining reasonableness of the license rate. I want to make certain that this critically important provision concerning the burden of proof is clearly understood in the license fee determination provision, Section 512(4). Nothing in Section 512(4) shall change the burden of proof with respect to the rates or fees under the consent decrees, which places the burden of showing a reasonable rate or fee on the performing rights society. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your affirmation of this understanding be included in the record for purposes of providing legislative history on this subject. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Member of Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 505 contains two important provisions and is substantially identical to H.R. 4712 which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I introduced earlier today. It adopts the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act identical to the language the House passed by an overwhelming margin in March. This section of the bill is a fitting tribute to our departed colleague Sonny Bono. The second part of the bill adopts an agreement on the issue of fairness in music licensing issue. This agreement is the product of grueling and ofttimes contentious negotiations. I am proud of the final product and am pleased that all sides were able to work together to bridge their differences. This bill is a victory for small business and a tribute to the commitment of its supporters. In March, the House overwhelmingly passed the Sensenbrenner amendment to the Copyright Term Extension bill by a 297-112 vote. That amendment reflected the core principles of my legislation, the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, and had the strong endorsement of groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Restaurant Association. Since that time, we have been working to strike an agreement with the other body over this language. I am pleased to report we have arrived at a compromise that is supported by the same groups and is acceptable to the opponents of the original Sensenbrenner amendment. In short, passage of this bill today will allow the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Fairness in Music Licensing Act to become law in very short course. Under the music licensing compromise, restaurants and bars with 3,750 gross square feet or less will be exempt from paying music licensing fees for playing the radio or television in their establishments. Retail businesses will benefit from a 2,000 gross square foot exemption for radio and television. Importantly, both types of establishments, regardless of size, will be exempt if they have six or fewer external speakers or four televisions measuring 55 inches or less. Secondly, the bill contains a ``circuit rider'' provision that will provide small businesses an alternative to the existing system of dispute resolution which requires businesses to challenge ASCAP and BMI in a New York rate court. Under the provision in this bill, the existing New York rate court maintains jurisdiction over those cases but will hear them at the circuit court level. Lastly, the bill provides an exemption from licensing fees for television and stereo equipment retailers so that these businesses are not required to pay a fee simply to demonstrate to a potential customer that a product works. At this point in my statement, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that the critically important provision concerning the burden of proof is clearly understood in the license fee determination provision, Section 512(4). Nothing in Section 512(4) shall change the burden of proof with respect to the rates or fees under the consent decrees, which places the burden of showing a reasonable rate or fee on the performing rights society. Does the preceding statement reflect the gentleman's understanding of the provisions stated above? I yield to the gentleman from Florida.