F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today is the culmination of nearly 4 years of effort to provide relief for the small business community from the unfair music licensing system administered by the performance rights monopolies. My involvement in this issue stems from the tactics of an ASCAP operative who circumnavigated a lake in my district, hitting up every bar or restaurant with the standard take-or-leave-it proposition. Needless to say, I received a number of calls from perplexed and outraged owners. The tactics of ASCAP's representative prompted me to make a more thorough investigation of how these performance rights organizations function and who, if anybody, controls their behavior. What I learned was an eye opener. ASCAP and BMI, the two largest music licensing societies, are virtual monopolies operating under consent decrees administered by the Justice Department. Unfortunately, the Justice Department's priorities have been elsewhere, allowing the two monopolies to operate with impunity. The conduct of these monopolies has prompted 22 States to adopt code of conduct laws. Given the licensing society's' record of heavy-handed action, a Justice Department that has looked the other way, and a Federal law that is either ambiguous or clearly skewed, now is the time for Congress to act. My amendment incorporates three of the core principles embodied in my original bill, H.R. 789, the Fairness in Music Licensing Act. First it eliminates the most unfair aspect of the current system. Under the consent decrees, any business in the United States that wishes to dispute a licensing fee with ASCAP or BMI is forced to travel to New York City, hire a New York attorney, and fight it out in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, the so-called rate court. My amendment establishes local arbitration of these rate disputes so no one is coerced into accepting a license rate simply because it would be foolish to spend thousands of dollars to travel to New York to challenge the licensing monopolies and their litigation war chest. Let me point out that the current law requires that these disputes be resolved in court. My amendment takes it out of court, eliminates the necessity of hiring an attorney, and has local arbitration decide the issue. Second, the amendment updates the existing home-style exemption. Under the amendment, businesses whose public space is 3,500 square feet or less would be exempt from paying royalties for playing the radio or TV unless they charge admission. Those over 3,500 square feet would be exempt if they had two TVs or less and no more than six speakers. It is important to note that the exemption provided in my amendment does not, and I repeat, does not apply to live or recorded music where the proprietor controls the content. Only TV and radio broadcasts for which the broadcaster has already paid the royalty are exempt. Let me give an example of how far down the food chain the licensing societies go in pursuit of royalties. A marching band plays a song during the half time of a football game. First the stadium pays the licensing society to use the song played by the band. Then the national TV network pays to broadcast the song. Next the local TV station pays to broadcast the song. Then the local cable system pays for the song again. And finally, the bar in Pewaukee Lake, Wisconsin pays for airing the song on TV. That is right. The music licensing societies are paid five times, five times for the right, the one playing of one song. That is a scam and that is what my amendment reforms. The provision also exempts retailers of stereos and television sets who under existing laws must pay licensing fees simply to demonstrate that their product works so that a customer may buy it. You go into your local appliance store to buy a TV. The proprietor turns the TV on so that you can see the quality of the picture. And because the proprietor did that to sell the TV, they have to pay ASCAP under this current law. My amendment eliminates that. And finally, the amendment protects landlords and convention owners from vicarious liability for music licensing fees for music played by a tenant or an exhibitor.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, many of our communities do operate convention centers and they lease out space. If somebody turns on a TV set because they are selling a product or asking to go on vacation someplace, then the city or the owner of the convention center gets hit up for a licensing fee because they could not turn the hand of the tenant on the dial to turn the TV set off. Mr. Chairman, while considering the underlying bill, we have suggested that Congress is the appropriate place for the expansion of the scope of copyright expansion of business' obligations to pay additional fees. Meanwhile, the licensing societies and their defenders in the Congress claim that this body has no role in the music licensing debate where the central issue is a proposal to perhaps modestly diminish their ability to extract fees. But the Constitution itself suggests the need for balanced intellectual property rights. That is precisely what my amendment accomplishes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to stand aside and permit this Congress to do the bidding of the copyright holders who seek a one-way street to expand their rights while denying balance and fairness to the small business users of intellectual property. My amendment is supported by virtually every small business organization in the country, including the NFIB, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, home builders, florists, and the list goes on. In the name of balance and in the name of America's small business, I ask my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote on the Sensenbrenner amendment. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McCollum to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this McCollum amendment is no compromise. It was the last offer of the music-licensing monopolies, ASCAP and BMI, in the negotiations which broke off and has been rejected unanimously by all the organizations that support my amendment. The adoption of the McCollum amendment will not fix the problem with music licensing. I would like to give a little comparison between the two. First, the McCollum amendment does not provide for local arbitration. Any business owner or proprietor that wishes to contest a rate demand by ASCAP and BMI still has to go to court and hire a lawyer. Now, instead of having to go to New York, the McCollum amendment has the cases heard by a Special Master in each of the 12 circuits. That does not reduce the cost to a proprietor who wishes to contest something that he feels unreasonable. Going to San Francisco from Pocatello, Idaho, or to Atlanta from Kissimmee, Florida, or to Chicago from Superior, Wisconsin, is going to cost a lot of money and the meter ticks; and local arbitrations in the Sensenbrenner amendment will solve that. Secondly, the McCollum amendment only covers certain restaurants and not other music users, whereas, my amendment is universal. Only bars and restaurants are covered by the McCollum amendment, not funeral homes, the dentist's office, florists, the Main Street appliance store. They still are subject to the same type of harassment by ASCAP and BMI that my amendment seeks to eliminate. So unless our funeral home or our dentist's office has got a restaurant or a bar license, then we do not get the exemption. So it is very narrowly targeted. Third, the McCollum amendment is poorly targeted and would include parts of a restaurant where music is not played. For example, the 3,500 square feet contained in the McCollum amendment includes the bathroom, the broom closet, the refrigeration area, the storage area and the like, instead of the 3,500 square feet in my amendment, which is just where the music is played. If we want to pay a royalty fee or have to pay a royalty fee, we ought to pay a royalty fee where people can listen to the music rather than where there is no music. The McCollum amendment also does not apply to all music licensing societies in its circuit rider provision. It only provides to ASCAP and BMI, which are the subject of the consent decrees that were entered many years ago. Bob Dylan is not a member of ASCAP and BMI, and if one of his tunes comes up on the radio or the TV, the McCollum amendment does not apply, and the restaurateur or the bar owner or the other retail proprietor is subject to the existing law. The Sensenbrenner amendment does not have that defect. There is no freedom from vicarious liability in the McCollum amendment. So our city's convention center or a big hotel which is open for various types of exhibitions is on the hook because one of their tenants that they have leased space out to happens to turn on the TV when licensed music is played. The Sensenbrenner amendment gets rid of the vicarious liability, and that is a protection for hotels as well as for the municipalities that operate convention centers and the like. The McCollum amendment circuit rider adjudication provision is only as good as the Department of Justice consent decrees. If the DOJ gets rid of the consent decrees, then everything goes back to New York City. And DOJ has done that on many complicated areas, the most prominent of which is the AT&T litigation consent decree. The McCollum amendment only applies to a restaurant owner who does not own any other business besides his restaurant. So if the restaurant owner is into something else, the McCollum amendment does not apply. It would go back to the existing law which is so strongly objected to. And finally, under the McCollum amendment, an appliance store dealer who sells radios and TVs would still have to pay royalties for music that comes across the TV when he turns them on to sell them. The Sensenbrenner amendment does not do that. I think that the McCollum amendment is a sham. It is a fig leaf that really does not solve the problems that have caused this issue to come to the Congress. And finally, I would like to point out that there are those who say that passing the Sensenbrenner amendment is going to take away the income of poor, starving artists. If they believe ASCAP's figures, only 14 cents of their revenue on the dollar comes from fees from bars and restaurants. My amendment does not exempt live performances, big nightclubs----

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman from Texas will yield to me, Mr. Chairman, absolutely not. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) might have forgotten that Mr. Madland testified on how big his establishment is, and might not have made the connection with the exemption contained in the Sensenbrenner amendment. I am just here to inform the gentleman from North Carolina that Mr. Madland would not be exempt, and representations that the operator of that big an establishment, whether it is in Chetek, Wisconsin, or anyplace else in the country, would be exempt, that person simply has not read what is in the text of the Sensenbrenner amendment. Mr. Madland pays, and anybody else that has that big an establishment would pay under my amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for giving me this 2 minutes, and also thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for providing this open rule containing a waiver which may be necessary to protect a process supported by the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the leadership of the House. The rule guarantees this body the opportunity to provide balance to the underlying bill, the Copyright Term Extension Act, with a modest package of relief for America's small business. The supporters of fairness in music licensing, which is the subject of my amendment, believe it complements the Copyright Term Extension Act quite fittingly. The underlying bill extends the term of copyright for an additional 20 years, thereby permitting copyright owners to continue to commercially exploit works that are beginning to fall into the public domain. My amendment suggests the need to balance this generous expansion of rights, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) estimates to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for copyright owners, with a set of reforms designed to level the playing field for the users of intellectual property. Again, I thank the Committee on Rules for offering this open rule enabling a fair debate and an up-or-down vote on my amendment.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. The gentleman from North Carolina, when he gave his statement, referred to the testimony of a Peter Madland who used to be the President of the Tavern League of Wisconsin, talking about how big his place was and how much his gross income was. But what the gentleman from North Carolina did not tell us, and he would not yield to me so I could enlighten him, is that under the Sensenbrenner amendment, Mr. Madland's establishment would not be exempt from paying ASCAP fees. He testified before the subcommittee of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) on July 17, 1997, that he has 20,000 to 25,000 square feet in his establishment. It is a big bar. I have never been there, it is in the district represented by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). But the exemption contained in both the McCollum amendment and the Sensenbrenner amendment goes to 3,500 square feet, and Mr. Madland's establishment is way over that. He does not get a free ride. He is going to pay the same ASCAP fee as he has paid before because he has a big establishment. For the gentleman from North Carolina, having presided over the hearing where Mr. Madland testified on how big his establishment is, to make a representation that this major operator was going to get a free ride I think is regrettable.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the McCollum amendment that appears at page H-1448 of yesterday's Record, and I do not see any provision guaranteeing consumers access to repertoire anywhere in the McCollum amendment. Perhaps I am in error, and the gentleman from California can enlighten me.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The second thing is, what we are talking about here is TV and the radio. And how is the proprietor of the retail establishment to know what song is going to go on next so he can look up whether this is licensed by ASCAP or BMI? There is no way he can do it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And establishments that play their own recorded music, their own CDs and tapes. My guess is that the exemption that my amendment proposes might reduce ASCAP's and BMI's fees by as much as 5 cents on the dollar, but they will be able to pick that up with the 20-year term extension that is contained in the underlying bill. Vote for balance, vote against McCollum and vote for Sensenbrenner.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, the self-proclaimed architect of the United Nations global warming treaty, Raul Estrada- Oyuela, filled the atmosphere with some hot air of his own. Upset that Members of Congress dared to criticize the Kyoto Treaty, the Washington Times reported Mr. Estrada's proclamation that ``Congress is acting as though the rest of the world doesn't exist, not only on this matter but on others . . . Perhaps they need to get in touch with the rest of the world,'' he continued. I am sure we all appreciate the lecture, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid Mr. Estrada does not understand Congress' role. We are here to represent the interests of our constituents in the United States, not the interests of U.N. bureaucrats or other nations. I understand why some, including Mr. Estrada's Argentina, are eager to sign up for this treaty. They are not bound by it. The President should reject signing a treaty the Administration is unable to defend in its current form. I commend Mr. Estrada's refreshing candor expressing the U.N. mindset for America's interests.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment to S. 927, The National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998. I think that it is especially appropriate that we bring this bill before the House early in 1998, which has been designated by the United Nations as the ``Year of the Ocean.'' I can think of no better way to enter into the spirit of this designation than by passing the Sea Grant bill before us today. Thirty-two years ago, the National Sea Grant College Program was established by Congress to improve our understanding of the nation's marine environment and to manage marine resources better. Since then, ocean and marine science hasn't stood still, and neither should the Sea Grant program. This latest reauthorization bill is the fruit of a bipartisan effort between the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources to update and reinvigorate the Sea Grant program and to improve the accountability of the program to the taxpayers. I believe this bill achieves both of these goals, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. This five-year reauthorization is not much different from the H.R. 437, which passed the House overwhelmingly last June. It adds and modifies various definitions, clarifies the responsibilities of the Program Director, and outlines the duties of the Sea Grant institutions conducting Sea Grant programs. It also includes merit reviews of grant and contract applications, repeals the Sea Grant International Program, which has never been funded, and ensures peer review of research sponsored by Sea Grant. Moreover, by limiting administrative spending to no more than 5 percent of the lesser of the amount authorized or appropriated each fiscal year, the bill also will help ensure that the taxpayers' money is being spent on research, not red tape. In addition to the base authorization for the Sea Grant program, the bill includes additional authorizations for competitive, peer-reviewed research into the problems of zebra mussels, oyster disease, and phiesteria. I don't have to tell you how these organisms have plagued many communities throughout America and of the economic losses they have caused. This bill will help us get the best scientific minds working to improve our understanding of these problems and to find solutions. The Sea Grant program has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the marine environment these past three decades and has earned the support of the political and scientific community. I believe the bill the Science and Resources Committees have crafted will put the program on a sound footing for the future and, just as important, will provide the taxpayer with value for money. I urge my colleagues to support it. Before closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], Chairman of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, and the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for their hard work on this legislation. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for his support throughout the process. I also want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Alaska, the Chairman of the Committee on Resources [Mr. Young], and his colleagues on the Committee on Resources, including the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the committee; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans; and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the subcommittee's ranking member. They can be proud of their handiwork.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a colleague and a true patriot, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas. Today marks the 25th anniversary of Mr. Johnson's release from North Vietnam, where he was held as a prisoner of war for nearly seven years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. We have all heard stories of the horrific conditions endured by American servicemen who became pawns of the North Vietnamese as the Vietnam conflict raged. Representative Johnson saw some of the worst. He has been quoted as saying, ``If hell is here on earth, it is located on an oddly shaped city block in downtown Hanoi, Vietnam.'' Isolation, starvation, and torture were almost certainly not what Representative Johnson envisioned as he participated in ROTC in college and moved on to a military career as an Air Force fighter pilot. Yet when his F-4 was shot down only two months into his second tour of duty in Vietnam, Representative Johnson took everything that was handed to him all the while heroically maintaining his pride in the country he serves to this day. He was labeled a diehard by his guards and banished to solitary confinement for months at a time. A patriot throughout, Representative Johnson returned home an continued his military service until his retirement in 1979. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1991, where he has repeatedly shown his dedication to responsible fiscal policy, family values, and America's patriotic heritage. Since his return from Vietnam, Representative Johnson has received many awards in recognition of his service to his country, including two Silver Stars, two Purple Hearts, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and one Bronze Star with Valor, among others. Representative Johnson, our tribute today is not so prestigious an award. Yet it is meant to signify the gratefulness and respect of your colleagues for the service you have done your country and continue to do as a Member of this House. Representative Johnson, thank you. Your enduring will and patriotism in the face of unimaginable adversity is truly exemplary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER 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 yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the subcommittee chairwoman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1271 authorizes the FAA to carry out its Research, Engineering and Development program for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The objective of the RE&D program is to develop and validate the technology and knowledge required for the FAA to ensure the safety, efficiency and security of our national air transportation system. Technologies developed through the RE&D program are helping to transform our Nation's aging aviation system into a modern air traffic management system capable of meeting the increased aviation demands of the coming century. Examples of recent advances developed utilizing RE&D funds include quieter aircraft technology, more reliable aircraft control equipment, advanced explosive detection systems, and longer lasting runways. Overall, H.R. 1271 authorizes $226.8 million in fiscal year 1998 and $229.6 million in fiscal year 1999 for the FAA to carry out the RE&D program. Critical projects and activities of the program include research and development in the areas of air traffic management, navigation, weather, aircraft safety, systems security and human factors. Finally, H.R. 1271 contains language to require the FAA to provide Congress with notice of any major reprogramming or reorganization effort within the RE&D program and directs the FAA to move immediately to access the pending effect of the year 2000 computer program on the agency's information system. The legislation does not, however, include an authorization of funds for implementing the Flight 2000 demonstration program requested by the administration in the fiscal 1999 budget request. The Committee on Science plans to hold authorization hearings beginning next month on this program. I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Maryland, (Mrs. Morella), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the committee, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and other members of the Committee on Science for their hard work in crafting this legislation. H.R. 1271 is a true bipartisan bill which originally passed the House by the overwhelming vote of 414 to 7. Late last year the Senate amended and passed H.R. 1271. The Senate amendment made two significant changes to the bill. First. It struck the fiscal year 2000 authorization and, second, it increased the authorization for RE&D by $5.6 million in fiscal year 1999. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1271, as amended by the Senate, is a good bill and I strongly urge my colleagues to demonstrate our Nation's commitment to civil aviation research and development by voting aye today and sending this bill to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1271) to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration's research, engineering, and development programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant. For more than two decades, Ron Dellums has provided an example of tireless service to his constituents. The House of Representatives has been a fortunate beneficiary of Ron Dellums' experience and talents, and among both his constituents and colleagues, his contributions will be greatly missed. Mr. Dellums made his mark as a staunch defender of human and civil rights. He never failed to remember the social concerns of the people who entrusted him with his office. Yet, Mr. Dellums also displayed a commitment to fiscal responsibility, devoting much of his career to reducing military spending. Mr. Dellums was elected to the House of Representatives in 1970. He served a term as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee beginning in 1993, allowing him to more effectively pursue his goal of a leaner post-Cold War military. He developed a reputation as a thoughtful legislator who advocated collegial debate on even the most divisive issues. Although we have differed on many policy matters, I believe Ron Dellums to be an honorable legislator and a valuable colleague. He has served this body with integrity and dedication. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in bidding him farewell.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the same version of this bill passed this House last year under suspension of the rules. H.R. 112 requires the Administrator of NASA to convey to Stanislaus County, California, the property known as the NASA Ames Research Center, Crows Landing Facility. Under this bill NASA shall retain the right to use this property for aviation activities. In March of this year, NASA conducted a review of its field activities to identify potential closures which would reduce operational costs. As a result of this effort, NASA decided to cease operations at the NASA Crows Landing Facility in order to lower overhead burdens and eliminate operations costs. This excess Federal property is ideal for use by Stanislaus County for economic development. It is a win-win arrangement for the Federal Government and the local government of California, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. 1231.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 1231, an act to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration for the fiscal years 1998 and 1999, is nearly identical to H.R. 1272, a bill favorably reported by voice vote by the Committee on Science on April 16, 1997, and which was later passed by the full House by voice vote on April 23, 1997. Senate bill 1231 is the result not only of a bipartisan effort, but also a bicameral effort to craft legislation that is in the national interest. This bill reauthorizes the programs and activities of the United States Fire Administration, a small but important organization within the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The U.S. Fire Administration was created by Congress in 1974 in response to a report by the President's National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control entitled America Burning, which presented a dismal assessment of the Nation's fire problem. The report found that nearly 12,000 lives were lost to fire annually in this country. In addition, fire was found responsible for more than 300,000 injuries and over $3 billion of economic losses annually. Congress reacted to the report by declaring a Federal role for reducing fire losses, and created the United States Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy. The U.S. Fire Administration provides vital assistance to the Nation's fire and emergency services communities which helps them to save lives and property. The Fire Administration is able to perform this service through four primary missions: First, fire service training; second, fire-related data collection and analysis; third, public education and awareness; and fourth, research and technology development. The National Fire Academy provides management-level training and education to fire and emergency service personnel and fire protection and control activities. The Fire Academy, located in Emmitsburg, Maryland, trains tens of thousands of fire and emergency personnel a year through its on- and off-campus programs. Annually during budget authorization hearings held by the Committee on Science, witnesses from the volunteer and paid fire services as well as emergency services have testified as to the important and indispensable role the U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy play in their ability to perform their job. Senate 1231 establishes funding levels sufficient to preserve all the missions and functions of the Fire Administration and the Academy. Specifically, this bill authorizes just over $29.6 million for the Fire Administration's fiscal 1998 budget, and just over $30.5 million for fiscal year 1999. These Senate-approved authorization levels are slightly higher, $64,000 and $54,000 respectively, than the previously approved House authorizations. I believe this 3-percent increase is justified and necessary in order to ensure that the agency can continue its current mission activities, as well as to perform a new and important counterterrorism training function. The Fire Administration's new mission, counterterrorism training for emergency response personnel, arose from the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act passed last year by Congress and signed by the President. Counterterrorism training for first responders is an appropriate function of the Fire Administration, as it is frequently local fire and emergency departments who are first on the scene not only to battle fires, but also to react to acts of terrorism, such as the bombings in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center in New York. In addition, counterterrorism training complements and supplements many of the traditional first responder training programs currently offered through the Academy. The other sections of S. 1231 include, first, technical changes to fire protection standards; second, a provision requiring that the administrator inform Congress in advance of any effort to privatize or terminate agency activities; third, a requirement that reprogramming notices required by the Committee on Appropriations committees must also be provided to the authorizing committees; and fourth, a sense of Congress resolution emphasizing that planning should begin immediately to assess and correct any computer systems affected by the year 2000 date-related software problem; fifth, a provision allowing the Administrator to donate excess Federal computer equipment to schools; and sixth, a requirement that no later than 180 days after the enactment of this bill, the Fire Administration submit a report to Congress examining the risks faced by firefighters in suppressing tire fires. This report was also added by the Senate, and we agree as to its need. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy, and I believe this bill is a reflection of strong bipartisan support for these agencies and will enable them to continue their missions and to accomplish their goals. In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for their hard work on this legislation, as well as the full committee's ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.