[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4167-H4202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 192 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2500.

                              {time}  1712


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, the bill was open for amendment from page 108, line 17, through 
page 108, line 22.
  Pursuant to the further order of the House, each amendment shall not 
be subject to amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, may offer one 
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending 
amendment); amendments numbered 14, 26 shall be debatable only for 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent; 
amendments numbered 3, 30, 6 and 7 shall be debatable only for 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent; 
and amendment numbered 12 shall be debatable only for 60 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

[[Page H4168]]

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for 
the purpose of a colloquy with myself, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), and several other Members.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I greatly appreciate the past support of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for 
programs that assist communities and industries adversely impacted by 
foreign trade, communities such as those in my own district where the 
textile and apparel industry has taken a significant hit from foreign 
competition over the last decade.

                              {time}  1715

  This has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs to Mexico, China, 
and other countries.
  The National Textile Center, administered by the Department of 
Commerce, helps to counter the negative impact of foreign competition 
through research that supports state-of-the-art manufacturing in our 
domestic textile and apparel industry.
  Incredibly, the University of California, with an internationally 
recognized textile science program, is not a member of the National 
Textile Center consortium. As a result, it has been unable to obtain 
grants from the National Textile Center for its important research.
  What makes the exclusion of the University of California even more 
surprising is the fact that California is the second largest textile- 
and apparel-producing State in the Nation, the leading manufacturer of 
apparel in the United States, having produced $13 billion worth of 
goods last year alone. And nationally, California is the largest 
employer in the apparel and textile trade, employing over 144,000 
Californians.
  If the National Textile Center is to be truly national, its 
membership should not be limited to eastern and southeastern 
institutions alone. Textile manufacturing in California is very 
different, and the emphasis of the University of California's research 
programs differs from that of these institutions.
  As one of the leading manufacturing States in the country and a 
significant contributor to our Nation's economy, California's 
institutions are more than worthy of membership in the National Textile 
Center consortium.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) to implement a true national program that supports the textile 
and apparel industry throughout the United States.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the discussion. For the last 9 
years, the member colleges and universities of the National Textile 
Center have been doing research and outreach and support of the textile 
industry. Its research goals have been to discover, design, and develop 
new materials and innovative and improved manufacturing and integrated 
systems essential to the success of modern United States textile 
enterprises.
  While the National Textile Center has been doing good work, they have 
neglected the research programs of two of the Nation's top textile-
producing States, New York and California. Both Cornell University and 
the University of California at Davis, New York's and California's 
respective land grant universities, should be a part of this important 
research consortium.
  New York is the number two State in apparel manufacturing based on 
annual gross State product. Apparel manufacturing is the largest 
manufacturing sector in New York City, and constitutes about one-third 
of all of New York City's manufacturing.
  New York State employs the second-highest number of people in apparel 
manufacturing, after California. The apparel industry contributed $4.47 
billion in value-added manufacturing and $9.64 billion in shipments to 
the 1997 New York State annual gross product.
  At Cornell University, the Department of Textiles and Apparel is 
nationally recognized for its research and outreach that focus on 
apparel design, apparel technology, and fiber science. Beyond that, 
there are some extraordinarily innovative research and design programs 
that are going on at these institutions.
  The research involved not only will impact what we traditionally 
recognize as apparel and textiles, but also has implications for public 
health, public safety, and even public works.
  For example, Cornell researcher Anil Netravali has evaluated the use 
of epoxy lining for gas service pipes. Many of the service pipes that 
connect homes and businesses with the main gas lines are old and 
corroded, and are expensive to replace because of the extensive digging 
and disruption that is required.
  I urge that these two schools be taken into consideration in this 
program. It is essential for the future of the textile industry in 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, Professor C.C. Chu is working on biodegradable 
hydrogels that can be used in the medical sciences. The potential 
products from hydrogel textiles can be used in tissue engineering and 
could include skin, cartilage and even blood vessel replacement 
options. The availability of these tissue-engineered products could 
have significant implications for our health-care needs.
  The National Textile Center is the primary federal funding source for 
university-based textile and apparel research. Cornell University and 
the University of California at Davis should be able to compete for the 
funds that are made available through this important Department of 
Commerce program. There is no justifiable reason for excluding these 
two esteemed institutions from participating in this research 
consortium.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just share the gentlewoman's interest in 
supporting our domestic textile and apparel industry. I understand the 
importance of up-to-date research for the manufacturers in her district 
and many other districts in the country. As a matter of fact, my 
congressional district has lost several textile facilities.
  As the gentlewoman knows, we had to restore $13 million from the 
President's request for this very program. To add additional centers 
without providing additional funding would be inappropriate, but I 
would be pleased to work with the gentlewoman as we move to conference 
to try to ensure that California's and New York's concerns relating to 
the National Textile Center are given proper consideration.


              Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice or the Department of 
     State to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action 
     against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation 
     or reparations in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an 
     American prisoner of war during World War II, he or she was 
     used as slave or forced labor.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) reserves a point 
of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment in support of former 
American prisoners of war who were used by slave labor by Japanese 
corporations during the Second World War. These heroes survived the 
Bataan Death March, only to be transported to Japan and elsewhere in 
infamous death ships and then forced to work for Japanese companies 
under the most horrendous circumstances and conditions.
  Private employees in these corporations tortured and physically 
abused these American POWs while the corporations withheld essential 
medical

[[Page H4169]]

care and even the most minimal amount of food.
  My amendment to H.R. 2500 would prohibit any funds in the act from 
being used by the United States government to prevent the former POWs 
from seeking a fair hearing against the Japanese companies who used 
them as slave labor in civil court.
  This amendment is supportive of H.R. 1198, which is a bill that I 
have authored and put into the hopper which has over 160 cosponsors 
which calls for the United States government not to interfere with the 
efforts of former World War II POWs to have their day in court. This 
provision now, as I say, has over 160 bipartisan cosponsors.
  After the war, approximately 16,000 POWs returned all battered and 
nearly starved from their terrible ordeal, many permanently disabled; 
their lives changed forever. Many of them had died during the war; 
11,000 POWs died at the hand of the Japanese corporate controllers. The 
Japanese, by the way, had the worst record of physical abuse for POWs 
in recorded history.
  Some 4,500 of the former POWs are still alive. Now, like many other 
victims of World War II and the atrocities of that war, the remaining 
survivors, our POWs, our most heroic defenders, are looking to try to 
seek justice and recognition for the ordeal they suffered.
  They do not seek action or retaliation against the current Japanese 
government or the current Japanese people, nor do they seek to portray 
Asian-Americans or the Japanese people in a negative light. Rather, our 
former POWs, these brave heroes, seek the opportunity to bring their 
case against Japanese corporations who used them as slave labor, to 
bring their case to civil court.
  Japan has extended favorable reparation terms to many other victims 
of other countries, and they continue to settle war claims by other 
nationals of other countries. Unfortunately, to date our own State 
Department has asserted that our American POWs who were held by the 
Japanese have no claim against the Japanese corporations who worked 
them as slave labor.
  Our State Department has stood in the way of these American heroes, 
these POWs, in their struggle to obtain justice by restricting their 
ability to go to court. They have a very restrictive reading of the 
peace treaty between the United States and Japan, and are thus 
betraying our own POWs in order to protect Japanese corporations from 
our POWs seeking legal redress against them.
  It is, therefore, up to this Congress to pass this bill and to force 
our State Department to get out of the way and let our POWs have their 
day in court.
  This is a balanced and fair response to the situation. Many of the 
companies, the Japanese companies in question, are household names in 
the United States. As an ethical and moral matter, they should have 
voluntarily sought to close the book on this injustice a long time ago.
  I would hope that we can put this type of restriction into this bill 
that would prevent the State Department from using any funds that we 
authorize and appropriate today in order to prevent our POWs from suing 
the Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor in the Second 
World War.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order, and I 
move to strike the last word.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my dear friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), I am entirely sympathetic with what 
he is seeking to do. I just think it is inartfully done in the 
gentleman's amendment.
  He seeks to inhibit the government from filing any motion. There are 
lots of other pleadings and litigation besides a motion. There is an 
answer, there are interrogatories. There are all sorts of documents 
that could circumvent what the gentleman is attempting to do. It is too 
narrow.
  Secondly, fraud, it is an open door to fraud. If the gentleman stops 
the government from denying that some plaintiff was not a POW, is a 
phony, that can happen easily. All kinds of people claim war records. 
The gentleman opened the door for that.
  I think what the gentleman wants to do is meritorious, but it is 
going to require a lot more attention. I would prefer the gentleman to 
have a bill, and we have some hearings and have some scholarship look 
at this and do it right.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not believe it 
would be better to have those very objections that he mentioned settled 
by a judge rather than settled in the bureaucracy, with all the 
political pulls that are on our bureaucracy?
  Mr. HYDE. Access to the courts is a legal element. Sometimes there is 
standing, sometimes there is not. I think that there is an issue here 
to be looked at.
  There is some law here, law of treaties, but I have no problem with 
the court adjudicating these, because I want the people who are going 
into court to be there under proper pleadings, not just inhibit the 
motion by the government. That does nothing. I do not want to invite 
fraud, which I think the gentleman's amendment does.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say 
to the gentleman from Illinois, we obviously have a disagreement.
  Mr. HYDE. Surely. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
I admire what the gentleman from California is trying to do. I just do 
not think it is done properly in the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can work with 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) as we get to the point. But I think the 
gentleman makes a valid point.
  If the gentleman could sit down with them, maybe we could work 
something out by the time we finish up the bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law, which constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear any argument on the point of order. 
The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, Mr. Chairman, that many of the 
objections that my good friend and the chairman have made I believe 
frankly could be taken care of easily by simply letting the POWs that 
we are referring to take their case to court, because then the court 
would determine whether or not there had been fraud, whether or not the 
people have a just claim, whether or not the records were sufficient in 
order to prove their case.
  All of the objections that the good chairman just made can easily be 
determined by a judge, and that is my intent. That is the intent of 
this legislation.
  Instead, by letting our State Department use our money, the 
taxpayers' money, to block our POWs, the survivors of the Bataan Death 
March, from going to court, what we are doing is we are getting in the 
way of having a judicial decision on those very issues.

                              {time}  1730

  No, what we should be doing now is not abandoning the Bataan Death 
March survivors again.
  Let us remind ourselves that in World War II these men, and a few 
women, yes, were abandoned by the United States Government on the 
Bataan Peninsula. And when it was determined that they could not go 
back to save them without risking further American lives in a defeat, 
we abandoned them. And then after the war, when they were finally freed 
from Japanese captivity, our State Department abandoned them again.
  They need their day in court. That is where those determinations 
should be made.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot yield under a point of order.

[[Page H4170]]

  Mr. HYDE. May I be heard on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman if he wishes to speak 
on the point of order.
  Mr. HYDE. I wish to speak, if I may.
  I agree with everything my friend said, except he wants them to have 
a day in court, but he also does not want the Government to be 
permitted to participate. The gentleman's amendment says no motion 
denying this or that; an open door to fraud. But the gentleman cannot 
have a court hearing unless there are two parties.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The parties are the corporations that worked them as 
slave laborers and our POWs. The United States Government should not be 
getting in the way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair will endeavor to 
hear arguments on both sides and not a colloquy between Members.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HYDE. The Chair is right.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any further Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Virginia 
makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California proposes to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) 
of rule XXI.
  The amendment is in the form of a limitation. The limitation is 
properly confined to the funds in the pending bill and to the fiscal 
year covered by the pending bill. The limitation proposes a negative 
restriction on those funds by objectively identifying a purpose to 
which they may not be put.
  The Chair finds that the amendment refrains from imposing new duties 
or requiring new determinations. It only requires an interventor to 
take cognizance of the action, all of which would already be a matter 
of public record in the courts, in which he would intervene. By simply 
denying funds for a specified object, the amendment refrains from 
legislative prescription. The Chair therefore holds that the amendment 
proposes a proper limitation. The point of order is overruled.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized for 30 
seconds on his amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues 
support my amendment, and I am very grateful to the Chair for ruling it 
in order.
  All we are suggesting is that the money that we are appropriating 
here not be used to thwart the right of some of the greatest heroes in 
American history who were betrayed by their own government during World 
War II. This will prevent our State Department from continuing their 
policy of thwarting the legal suits by American POWs, the Bataan Death 
March survivors, against the Japanese corporations that worked them as 
slave laborers.
  I would ask all of my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my 
colleague's amendment, prohibiting the use of government funds to 
oppose civil actions brought by U.S. veterans who were victims of 
Japanese forced or slave labor during World War II. It is our 
responsibility to ensure that these veterans who served in the Pacific 
Theater and then were victimized as prisoners of war in Japan can 
pursue justice.
  Many of these soldiers survived the Bataan Death March which required 
them to march over 60 miles with little or no food or water. Hundreds 
of U.S. soldiers died of dehydration, starvation, and worse on this 
march. When they arrived in Japan, the American prisoners of war were 
turned over to private Japanese companies to serve as slave laborers. 
Thousands of soldiers perished laboring for these private companies.
  These American prisoners of war have been seeking an apology and 
adequate compensation from the Japanese companies for the hard labor 
and atrocities they were forced to endure during their time in the 
slave labor camps. I was appalled to learn that the U.S. Government has 
opposed the veterans' efforts to recover compensation from the Japanese 
companies, instead of helping them resolve their claims.
  This is especially tragic given the U.S.-German agreement signed on 
July 17, 2000, that established the German Foundation, ``Remembrance, 
Responsibility and the Future,'' which is charged with resolving 
similar claims by civilian slave laborers against German companies. 
Last month, these long-awaited compensation payments went out to some 
10,000 Holocaust survivors who performed slave and forced labor.
  Our veterans should not be denied their day in court. It would be 
unconscionable for our veterans, who fought for their country and 
performed slave labor under the most brutal of conditions, to be 
further denied their right to pursue the apology and compensation they 
have long deserved. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment calling attention to this egregious situation.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The effect of this 
amendment is to abrogate our post-World War II agreement with Japan on 
reparations to U.S. citizens injured by Japan during World War II. It 
would bar the Justice Department and the State Department from using 
appropriated funds ``to file a motion in any court opposing a civil 
action against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation or 
reparations in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American 
prisoner of war during World War II he or she was used as slave or 
forced labor.''
  Although U.S. POWs used as slave laborers deserve redress, this 
amendment may raise serious constitutional concerns. During the Reagan 
Administration, the Department of Justice regularly advised Congress of 
its constitutional concerns over the so-called Rudman Amendment, a 
funding bar annually added by Congress that purported to bar the 
President from spending appropriated funds to advocate in court the 
view that the antitrust laws did not bar vertical non-price restraints. 
The Justice Department believed that the Rudman Amendment represented 
an attempt to accomplish indirectly through the appropriations power 
that Congress could not, consistent with the Constitution, accomplish 
directly through legislation--namely, to tell the President how to 
``take Care that the laws [in this case, the antitrust laws] be 
faithfully executed.'' The Justice Department took this view even 
though the legal question was simply one of statutory construction, 
i.e., the proper interpretation of a law wholly within Congress's 
legislative domain, because it also implicated the Take Care Clause--a 
grant of power to the President directly under the Constitution, and 
not a grant of delegated legislative authority. If accordingly 
represented an unconstitutional condition.
  This amendment appears to raise a still more serious constitutional 
question, because in addition to attempting to use the appropriations 
power indirectly to control the executive branch's interpretation of 
statutes pursuant to the Take Care Clause, it also attempts indirectly 
to use the appropriations power to control the President's exercise of 
the Foreign Affairs Power--a power he also enjoys directly under the 
Constitution, and not by grant of delegated legislative authority. This 
is so because the executive branch's position in such litigation could 
rest directly on the President's foreign affairs power.
  As a result, it would be better to pursue any appropriate redress 
through direct executive-branch negotiations with the Government of 
Japan.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration opposes this amendment. 
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, there are several additional reasons to oppose 
this amendment, despite its noble purpose of assisting former prisoners 
of war. These reasons are eloquently set forth in the following 
correspondence from the Honorable George P. Schultz, former U.S. 
Secretary of State:

                                                     June 1, 2001.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you to express my deep 
     reservations about H.R. 1198--The Justice for the U.S. 
     Prisoners of War Act of 2001. I believe the passage of this 
     act would be a direct challenge to the ability of the United 
     States to make and execute treaties.
       I express my opposition to the bill against the background 
     of tremendous sympathy for the problems of the United States' 
     citizens who have in one way or another been harmed, many 
     severely, in the course of war and its sometimes dehumanizing 
     impact.
       But the bill in question would have the effect of voiding 
     the bargain made and explicitly set out in the Treaty of 
     Peace between Japan, the United States and forty-seven other 
     countries. President Truman with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate ratified the Treaty and it became effective April 
     28, 1952. The Treaty has served us well in providing the 
     fundamental underpinning for the peace and prosperity we have 
     seen, for the most part, in the Asia Pacific region over the 
     past half-century.
       The treaty addresses squarely the issue of compensation for 
     damages suffered at the hands of the Japanese. Article 14 in 
     the Treaty sets out the terms of Japanese payment ``for the 
     damage and suffering caused by it during the war.'' The 
     agreement provides:
       1. a grant of authority to Allied powers to seize Japanese 
     property within their jurisdiction at the time of the 
     Treaty's effective date;
       2. an obligation of Japan to assist in the rebuilding of 
     territory occupied by Japanese forces during the war; and
       3. waiver of all ``other claims of the Allied Powers and 
     their nationals arising out of any action taken by Japan and 
     its nationals of the war.''

[[Page H4171]]

       The interests of Allied prisoners of war are addressed in 
     Article 16, which provides for transfer of Japanese assets in 
     neutral or enemy jurisdictions to the International Red Cross 
     for distribution to former prisoners and their families.
       H.R. 1198 challenges these undertakings head on, as it 
     says, ``In any action in a Federal court, . . . . the court . 
     . . . shall not construe section 14 (b) of the Treaty of 
     Peace with Japan as constituting a waiver by the United 
     States of claims by nationals of the United States, including 
     claims by members of the United States Armed Forces, so as to 
     preclude the pending action.''
       I have read carefully an opinion of Judge Vaughn R. Walker 
     of the U.S. District Court in California rendered on 
     September 21, 2000, dealing with claims, many of a heart-
     rending nature. His reasoning and his citations are incisive 
     and persuasive to me. He writes, ``The cases implicate the 
     uniquely federal interests of the United States to make peace 
     and enter treaties with foreign nations. As the United States 
     has argued as amicus curiae, there cases carry potential to 
     unsettle half a century of diplomacy.'' Just as Judge Walker 
     ruled against claims not compatible with the Treaty, I urge 
     that Congress should take no action that would, in effect, 
     abrogate the Treaty.
       The chief negotiator of the Treaty on behalf of President 
     Truman was the clear-eyed and tough-minded John Foster 
     Dulles, who later became Secretary of State for President 
     Eisenhower. He and other giants from the post World War II 
     period saw the folly of what happened after World War I, when 
     a vindictive peace treaty, that called upon the defeated 
     states to pay huge reparations, helped lead to World War II. 
     They chose otherwise: to do everything possible to cause 
     Germany and Japan to become democratic partners and, as the 
     Cold War with the Soviet Union emerged, allies in that 
     struggle.
       As Judge Walker notes in his opinion, ``the importance of a 
     stable, democratic Japan as a bulwark to communism in the 
     region increased.'' He says, ``that this policy was embodied 
     in the Treaty is clear not only from the negotiations 
     history, but also from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
     report recommending approval of the Treaty by the Senate . . 
     . and history has vindicated the wisdom of that bargain.''
       I served during World War II as a Marine in the Pacific. I 
     took part in combat operations. I had friends--friends close 
     to me--friendships derived from the closeness that comes from 
     taking part in combat together, killed practically beside me. 
     I do not exaggerate at all in saying that the people who 
     suffered the most are the ones who did not make it at all. I 
     have always supported the best of treatment for our veterans, 
     especially those who were involved in combat. If they are not 
     being adequately taken care of, we should always be ready to 
     do more.
       If you have fought in combat, you know the horrors of war 
     and the destructive impact it can have on decent people. You 
     also know how fragile your own life is. I recall being the 
     senior Marine on a ship full of Marines on our way back from 
     the Pacific Theatre after three years overseas. We all knew 
     that we would reassemble into assorted forces for the 
     invasion of the Japanese home islands. As Marines, we knew 
     all about the bloody invasions of Tarawa, the Palaus, 
     Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and many other islands. So we knew what 
     the invasion of the Japanese home islands would be like.
       Not long after we left port, an atomic bomb was dropped on 
     Japan. None of us knew what that was, but we sensed it must 
     be important since the event was newsworthy enough to get to 
     our ships at sea. Then we heard of a second one. Before our 
     ship reached the States, the war was over.
       I have visited Japan a number of times and I have been 
     exposed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians there were 
     caught up in the war. I am sympathetic towards them. I have 
     heard a lot of criticism of President Truman for dropping 
     those bombs, but everyone on that ship was convinced that 
     President Truman saved our lives. Yes, war is terrible, but 
     the Treaty brought it to an end.
       The Bill would fundamentally abrogate a central provision 
     of a fifty-year-old treaty, reversing a long-standing foreign 
     policy stance. The Treaty signed in San Francisco nearly 
     fifty years ago and involving forty-nine nations could 
     unravel. A dangerous legal precedent would be set.
       Once again I would say to you, where we have veterans, 
     especially veterans of combat who are not being adequately 
     supported, we must step up to their problems without 
     hesitation. But let us not unravel confidence in the 
     commitment of the United States to a Treaty properly 
     negotiated and solemnly ratified with the advice and consent 
     of the U.S. Senate.
       I submit this letter to you and other members of the House 
     of Representatives with my deep respect for the wisdom of the 
     congressional process, and for the vision embodied in the 
     past World War II policies that have served our country and 
     the world so well.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 George P. Shultz.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I was seeking to be recognized on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. There is no time on either side. Under the order of the 
House, there is prescribed time on both sides, and that time has 
expired.
  Mr. COX. I thank the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question again.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I rise to 
enter into a colloquy with the chairman as well as with the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) with regard to funding for the Small 
Business Administration's Women's Business Centers program.
  Mr. Chairman, the SBA's Women's Business Centers provide valuable 
education, training, consulting and access to capital services to women 
entrepreneurs. There are 93 Women's Business Centers in 46 States 
serving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs each year. A large 
percentage of Women's Business Centers clients are women from low-
income or disadvantaged backgrounds who would be unable to start their 
own businesses without the assistance of a women's business center. 
These centers strengthen our economy by creating businesses and jobs 
and by reaching out to new markets and new entrepreneurs.
  Last year, the House approved a bipartisan amendment that I offered 
to this bill, along with several other representatives, to increase 
funding for this program from $9 million to $13 million. Earlier this 
year, I sent the chairman a letter signed by six of our colleagues 
requesting the fully authorized $13.7 million for the SBA's Women's 
Business Centers program.
  In large part, the gentleman has been responsive to our request by 
level-funding the Women's Business Centers program at $12 million. 
Funding for the Women's Business Centers program in the FY 2002 House 
Commerce, Justice, State bill is $3 million more than it was at this 
point in our discussions in the FY 2001 bill, and I thank the gentleman 
very much for that. Nevertheless, I feel passionately about this 
program, and I would like to work with the chairman through conference 
to further increase fiscal year 2002 funding to the authorized level of 
$13.7 million.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the remarks of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts regarding the invaluable service of 
Women's Business Centers and the need to fund the program at the 
authorized levels of $13.7 million.
  As of 1999, there were 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the 
United States, generating sales in excess of $3.6 trillion and 
employing 27.5 million workers. Furthermore, one in eight of these 
businesses is owned by a woman of color, making women of color the 
fastest-growing segment of women-owned businesses.
  In Maryland alone, there are now over 193,000 women-owned businesses, 
accounting for 40 percent of all the firms in the State of Maryland. In 
fact, my district, Montgomery County, Maryland, is actually ranked the 
top county for women business ownership in Maryland.
  Unfortunately, even with this tremendous growth, women entrepreneurs 
still face barriers in the marketplace. With the current rate of 
government contract procurement for women-owned businesses at a mere 
2.4 percent, there is an ever-growing need for women-owned business 
assistance in every congressional district.
  It was a great victory for women when the House was able to approve 
the bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

[[Page H4172]]

McGovern) offered and that we cosponsored to increase funding for the 
Women's Business Centers last year. It is an even greater victory, 
however, that the Committee on Appropriations today was able to 
recognize the need for the $3 million increase and fund it at that 
fiscal year 2001 level.
  But even still, I share the concern of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that without increased funding this program may begin to 
stagnate. I would like to work through conference with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to search 
for additional funding for the Women's Business Centers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just wish to say that I 
agree with the gentlewoman that the Women's Business Center Program is 
valuable, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's acknowledgment that we 
were able to, in large part, respond to her funding request.
  We would be happy to work with the gentlewoman and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and others to see if we can identify 
additional resources for the program.
  Mrs. MORELLA. We appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for yielding to me, and I would like to engage in a short 
dialogue with the subcommittee chairman.
  First, let me thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), as well as the entire 
subcommittee and the full committee, for their work on this bill. It is 
a good bill.
  However, I would like to talk about the Maritime Administration 
funding for the six State maritime training academies. The funding for 
all six schools in this year's bill is roughly the same as last year. 
Great Lakes Maritime Academy in Traverse City, Michigan, is the only 
one of the six State schools that trains marine pilots as well as deck 
and engine officers.
  As the gentleman from the coastal State of Virginia is well aware, 
our Nation is dependent upon waterborne commerce. Great Lakes shipping 
is vital to our country's industrial economy. I believe that each of 
these State academies should receive a minimum of $500,000 for their 
base funding. I would like to know whether the chairman will support 
conference language that would direct a minimum allocation of at least 
$500,000 to each State maritime academy.
  I appreciate the chairman's interest in this matter, and I look 
forward to working together to ensure that all the State maritime 
academies receive the support they deserve to fulfill their critical 
mission.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his interest in this important maritime education program.
  The recommended funding level in the bill assumes equal direct 
payments of $200,000 to each of the six State academies. The remaining 
funds in the program are allocated based on enrollment in the Student 
Incentive Program, and on scheduled school ship maintenance and repair.
  We look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that this 
additional funding is allocated in an equitable fashion.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my 
concerns about the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development. This group has recently begun promoting tax harmonization 
among nations. The OECD believes developing nations, like Liberia or 
Grenada, should not be allowed to set their own tax rates to attract 
needed capital to their economies. Instead, the OECD says that nations 
should adopt all higher tax rates more among the lines of those in 
Europe. This is unfair to the nations who need foreign capital to 
promote economic growth, and it also goes against the free market 
concept that tax competition keeps taxes lower worldwide.
  As the chairman knows, the United States contributions to the OECD, 
which are distributed through the State Department, constitutes roughly 
25 percent of its budget. I do not think that our tax dollars should be 
used to promote an idea so contrary to the kinds of policies that have 
historically made our economy so strong. I think we should be ready to 
reconsider future funding of the OECD if they continue with their 
support of tax harmonization.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
sharing his concerns about the OECD and its policies on tax 
harmonization. I can assure the gentleman that we will keep an eye on 
the situation and will be happy to work further with the gentleman as 
our process moves forward.
  I just might say, though, that any hope of dealing with a country 
like Liberia is almost hopeless. Charles Taylor is abandoned. They are 
cutting off the arms of individuals. It is the conflict diamond. We 
were there with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) a year ago December.
  So, frankly, until Charles Taylor is removed from that government, I 
am not hopeful that anything good will happen. But with that, I will be 
glad to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I think Liberia is probably a poor example. But, 
nevertheless, to promote an institution that promotes higher taxes 
worldwide rather than lower taxes worldwide is an institution that is 
probably not worthy of our support. And I thank the chairman for 
engaging in this dialogue.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will designate 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to destroy any record of the national instant 
     criminal background check system established under section 
     103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, within 90 
     days after the date the record is created.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This is an amendment which incorporates what the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) has previously offered in freestanding 
legislation. For the last 3 years, the FBI has kept records of the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System for 6 months. Last 
month, the FBI reduced this retention period to 90 days.
  What this amendment would do is to simply keep that 90-day retention 
period in place for the length of this appropriations period.

                              {time}  1745

  Last year the NRA sued the Justice Department to destroy the records 
immediately. The Justice Department of Attorney General Ashcroft argued 
before the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court that it was necessary to 
retain these records for a reasonable period of time to ensure that the 
information provided by the system is accurate and that people are not 
providing false information in order to evade the law.
  Based on that argument, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court 
decision that the retention by the Department of Justice represented a 
permissible construction of the requirement to establish a system for 
preventing disqualified persons from purchasing firearms.
  Now, the reason for this amendment is that 3 days after the Supreme 
Court

[[Page H4173]]

decision said this was the appropriate thing to do, Attorney General 
Ashcroft decided that they should be destroyed within 1 day. That seems 
to run counter to the Justice Department's own argument.
  In fact, the Criminal Background Check Systems Operation Report, 
which was issued in April of this year, shows that over 5,000 people 
were able to slip through the NICS system last year alone. They 
received an approval which allowed them to purchase a gun that they 
legally should not have had. So the system is not perfect. To lower the 
time frame now seems at best unnecessary and, at worst, represents an 
attempt to frustrate the purpose of the act.
  Even more troubling is that this year the Department of Justice 
published a rule in which they cited the fact that their own criminal 
justice advisory panel recommended increasing the retention period to 1 
year. This amendment would only allow the 90 days.
  The amendment seeks to prohibit the FBI from destroying records that 
they say are necessary to be kept. So we do not think that this is any 
kind of radical amendment. It allows for quality control audits. It 
makes sure that the straw buyers, the bad apple dealers, are 
identified. Potential handgun purchasers or gun dealers who have stolen 
an identity in order evade the background check system can be caught. 
In other words, purchases for unauthorized purposes would be denied 
through this audit. That is why we think it is important.
  Mr. Chairman, I will retain the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) claim the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  After the gentleman from Virginia raised concerns last week at the 
committee level about the FBI system for gun purchase background check 
information, I set up a meeting for him and the FBI to discuss the 
issue.
  The FBI acting director, a career civil servant, not a political 
appointee, a career civil servant and a career FBI employee who works 
with the NICS program from the FBI call center in West Virginia 
travelled to answer questions. In fact, we specifically had the people 
that work on this program drive in from West Virginia to sit down and 
we said, give us all of the answers.
  I believe that all the answers were met and the concerns were put to 
rest. I want my colleagues to know that the Office of the Attorney 
General was not at the meeting. No political appointees were at the 
meeting. This was a meeting, as I promised, to look at the NICS system 
and hear from the professionals about its ability to ensure quality 
control within a 24-hour period for background checks.
  I understand that the career staffer who has extensive experience 
with the system indicated that the FBI can perform the quality control 
within 24 hours. That is a fact. In fact, they say it is better to do 
the quality assurance immediately rather than wait a few days or weeks 
or up to 90 days because if the system is not working right, then you 
want to know immediately as the sale of the gun is approved.
  It is important to note that the records that are kept now for 90 
days are on approved gun sales. However, what the NICS system does not 
tell us is if the gun was sold. This information resides with the gun 
dealer, not the FBI.
  The FBI keeps records indefinitely on people who were denied the 
ability to buy the gun because of a felony record, mental deficiencies 
or spousal abuse.
  We want to strike the right balance between protecting the privacy of 
people and ensuring that law enforcement has adequate time to review 
and audit the information collected to make sure the system is working 
properly.
  The Moran amendment is unnecessary. It is not needed, it is clear, 
after talking and listening to the career professionals at the FBI. 
Also, the amendment is highly controversial and not an issue that, 
quite frankly, we should be dealing with on the appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members on all sides to defeat this unneeded 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself to 
respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, it was career civil servants in the Justice Department 
that argued successfully before the Supreme Court that this retention 
period was necessary to be retained. When we asked with regard to the 
90 days, they found that it would do no harm whatsoever. In fact, when 
we looked at the information that was prepared for the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, they said the only reason not to have 180 days was 
basically that gun-interest groups would object politically. The 
Justice Department's Criminal Justice Advisory Board in fact 
recommended one full year's retention of these records.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) is getting into an area that has always caused a 
controversy in the Congress. I thought we spoke clearly a few years ago 
when we said 24 hours is what the check should be. I get very nervous 
when the FBI retains weapons and/or other material. I understand they 
lost 100 computers. They mislaid a number of weapons, and one of those 
weapons was used in a murder. The longer they retain records, the more 
chance there is for abuse.
  Most of the people, the majority of the people, a vast majority of 
the people that work for the Department of Justice and the FBI are 
qualified, highly competent people. But the longer we retain any kind 
of records about any of these things, the more mischief it can cause.
  Mr. Chairman, I am an advocate of privacy; and the government has 
enough records. I would urge Members to vote against the Moran 
amendment because I believe it does not improve the privacy system. As 
a matter of fact, it is detrimental to the privacy system. I appreciate 
what the gentleman is trying to do, but I am very nervous when the 
government maintains records for any period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to wait and see how it is working. If 
it is not working, maybe we ought to make a change. But I feel very 
strongly about it, and I urge Members to vote against the Moran 
amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, number one, there are no names on the retentions. 
Only where the person buys the gun are the records maintained. When it 
goes into the NICS system, that is the backup for making sure that 
people are not using the system wrongly.
  So, again, we come up to this debate, and this is not what the debate 
should be about. The debate should be that we have to make sure that 
criminals, which certainly we know can use an instant and positive 
check, can use false identification and buy guns throughout this 
country.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week and last week I 
spent a little bit of time at the United Nations in New York. They are 
involved in a conference on arms control, not global arms control, not 
military arm controls, but arms control of the variety that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is referring to; that is, the 
control of lawful firearms in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that U.S. law prohibits this 
by its explicit terms, as well as the intent of at least two acts of 
Congress signed by at least two Presidents. The Congress and the people 
of this country have spoken out that we do not want and we will not 
allow the Federal Government to retain and maintain, manipulate and 
utilize a system of keeping track of

[[Page H4174]]

law-abiding citizens who possess, purchase or transfer a lawful firearm 
in this country.
  As a matter of fact, one of the first acts that he engaged in as 
attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft said we need to look at this. We have 
had abuses in the past. He has done the right thing. He has come 
forward and said to the American people and to this Congress, and the 
FBI has backed him up, there is no need to retain records on citizens 
who are not disabled from or otherwise prohibited from purchasing or 
possessing a firearm. There is no need for the government, once the 
government has determined through the instant, I repeat, instant, 
background check that that person is a legitimate person to possess a 
firearm or purchase a firearm, there is no reason whatsoever for the 
government to retain those records. It is prohibited by existing law, 
and the gentleman is trying to reopen this wound even though there was 
testimony before his committee and his subcommittee by the FBI that 
this is not necessary.
  The gentleman ought to take his concern to the United Nations. They 
are very concerned and are moving in this direction, but we ought not 
to in the United States of America.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who has fought this issue 
for many years and has personal experience that we should all listen 
to.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and 
distinguished ranking member for including language in this bill for a 
child safety lock measure that also recognizes that we need standards 
on these locks. I think it is extremely important that Congress start 
to listen to the American people.
  However, while this body takes a positive step in reducing senseless 
acts of gun violence, the Department of Justice takes two steps back by 
proposing regulations that tie the hands of law enforcement officials. 
That is why I express my strong support for this amendment.
  While the Brady Act passed, its intent was to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals. It has done an outstanding job with that.
  Congress relied on the Department of Justice and the FBI to operate a 
national instant check system which screens buyers for criminal 
activity before they are allowed to obtain a firearm. As part of this 
system, the Department of Justice has retained the gun purchase records 
for 120 days in order to perform audits and identify potential 
violations of the national gun laws. This retention period has recently 
been reduced to 90 days. Eventually, it should be reduced to 40 days. 
Eventually, we will see the day when we can get rid of all of these 
checks but not until the States have the full records that they need to 
get the information out there.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that short-term retention of gun purchase 
records enables law enforcement to identify multiple cases of 
unauthorized or illegal use of the NICS system. We also know that 1 
percent of bad dealers are the source of 50 percent of the Nation's gun 
traces.
  When ATF conducted a specific audit of the NICS system by dealers in 
New Orleans, it found 12 of 17 of those dealers either abused or 
misused the NICS system. Some guns were sold to felons, while another 
dealer permitted a background check to be run on a family member not 
involved in the gun purchase.
  Yes, the Justice Department has recently proposed to reduce the 
current period allowed to retain gun purchase records for 24 hours. I 
find this completely illogical. In January of this year, the FBI 
advisory board actually recommended increasing the temporary retention 
of these records from 6 months to 1 year. Yet 6 months later the 
Department of Justice is proposing to reduce the time period to 24 
hours. What is equally disturbing is that the courts have sided with 
the Department of Justice's need to retain these records.

                              {time}  1800

  The NRA sued the Federal Government in a case that was recently 
denied by the Supreme Court, arguing that Federal law enforcement 
officers had no right to detain purchase records in the NICS system. 
The Justice Department argued against the NRA in this lawsuit and they 
won. In their legal briefs, they actually argued that keeping records 
for a reasonable time after purchase helps in numerous ways.
  This is not a gun debate. This is a safety debate again, so felons 
and criminals cannot get their guns.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Virginia's 
amendment because it undermines one of the most important principles 
underlying and underpinning Brady, and that is the protection of gun 
purchasers' privacy rights.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone supports the purpose of the Brady Act, instant 
check. But the act itself did not contemplate and specifically prohibit 
retention of records.
  May I read from it. It says that no officer of the United States 
Government could require, and I quote, ``that any record or portion 
thereof generated by the system established under this section be 
recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed or controlled 
by the United States.''
  We specifically talked to the principle of protecting gun owners' 
privacy rights. Legitimate purchasers, instant check, get their guns, 
should not be on a list kept by the United States Government. Criminal 
purchasers, they are already on a list because they are prosecuted. 
This is about the privacy rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.
  Oppose the Moran amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just 
to remind my very good friend from West Virginia that these records do 
not retain any names, and so privacy is scrupulously maintained.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to have the background check system 
function efficiently, and to do that we need to preserve records so 
that law enforcement officials can investigate corrupt dealers who 
traffic guns illegally and sell firearms off the books. It also assists 
authorities to track down straw purchasers who buy guns illegally for 
felons, fugitives, children and others. Preserving these records also 
helps in the fight against criminals who buy guns with fake IDs. The 
General Accounting Office went undercover in five States and they 
demonstrated how easy it is to use fake IDs to obtain firearms. The 
conclusion was that although there are few ways to detect fake IDs, one 
option is for police to monitor criminal background check records. The 
Attorney General now wants to eliminate even this limited but valuable 
tool.
  The Attorney General's proposal I think is a horrible mistake for 
public safety. It will seriously jeopardize legitimate law enforcement 
activities. It does not make law enforcement easier. It does not help 
cops on the street. It does not increase deterrence. And it does not 
provide police any additional resources in their fight. It seems to be 
nothing more than an outright gift to the gun lobby. That is why I 
support the Moran-McCarthy-Waxman amendment to this bill. I think it is 
an important one if we are going to have the integrity preserved of the 
original Brady Act.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Kerns).
  Mr. KERNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Moran amendment would keep records of law-abiding 
citizens for 90 days. I understand that records of felons and others 
that are not allowed to buy guns are kept indefinitely. While I believe 
that we should enforce existing gun laws and prosecute criminals who 
violate these laws, we also must protect the rights of law-abiding gun 
owners. I believe that once a firearm purchase is approved, the Federal 
Government should destroy personal identification records that have 
been collected in connection with background checks.
  While I was prepared to offer two amendments today, I will not do so 
at

[[Page H4175]]

this time, but I urge my colleagues to vote against the Moran 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Each side has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, we would not entertain in this body for 5 
seconds the idea of suspending any other constitutionally protected 
right in this country. Yet we seem to advise ourselves constantly that 
the second amendment does not deserve the same protection from this 
body as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly or freedom to practice 
whatever religion we would.
  Why do we not take and spend some time, spend our limited talents, 
our limited resources and our constitutional mandate to protect the 
peaceful citizens of this country and to punish the bad ones instead of 
the other way around?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In the first place, the Court has clarified time and again the 
interpretation of the second amendment, and it is for the purpose of a 
well-regulated militia. Chief Justice Warren Burger is a good person to 
consult on that. He was a gun collector himself, and he made that 
unquestionably clear.
  We are not talking about compromising in any way the Constitution. 
What we are talking about is the ability of law enforcement to carry 
out its responsibilities. Currently a 90-day retention period is 
maintained so that you can audit the system, so that you can weed out 
those who are using straw purchases, so that you can identify people 
that are not supposed to be getting a gun, and to determine whether, in 
fact, the system is working. The FBI will tell you that privacy is 
scrupulously maintained. They are not keeping the names. There is no 
way that people's privacy is going to be violated. But if we do not 
have a reasonable retention period, this system is not going to work 
and we will go back to a waiting period. Maybe that is for the best.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moran amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be the pleasure of this body 
to overwhelmingly reject the Moran amendment. I heartily disagree with 
his assessment that law enforcement personnel need a 90-day rule to 
carry out their responsibilities. We are talking about law-abiding gun 
owners whose purchase was approved. Those records should be destroyed 
immediately.
  Please vote against the Moran amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moran amendment.
  I support an instant check system for the purchase of a firearm. But 
instant should mean instant. Legal purchasers of firearms should not 
have their names and addresses floating around in some government 
computer.
  The Attorney General has underway efforts to make improvements in the 
National Instant Check System. The check system is only as good as the 
records it contains. The Attorney General is seeking to make the 
records in the system more complete and to increase the response level 
of the system. The Attorney General is directing the Justice Department 
to conduct a comprehensive, state-by-state review of missing or 
incomplete criminal history records, including adjudication records of 
cases of mental illness and domestic violence. This is appropriate.
  The Attorney General has also pledged to increase the enforcement of 
the law for those who falsify information in order to obtain a firearm. 
From 1994 through June 5th of this year, the FBI referred 217,000 
attempted illegal gun purchases for investigation. Of these only 294 
people have been convicted. I applaud the Attorney General's pledge to 
enforce our gun laws aggressively.
  But law abiding firearms purchasers should also be convinced of the 
background check system's integrity. Once a legal purchaser has cleared 
the instant check system, that should be the end of it. The Attorney 
General seeks improvements in the system so that the records of lawful 
approved gun purchases will be kept until the next business day after 
the transfer is approved to allow for real-time audits to ensure the 
accuracy and integrity of the results, a standard recommended by the 
computer industry.
  The Moran amendment seeks to reverse the improvements the Attorney 
General is seeking to make. Oppose the Moran amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used for any United States contribution to the United Nations 
     or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It 
says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any 
United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated 
agency of the United Nations.'' It would defund the United Nations. It 
would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the 
amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues.
  I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for 
our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States 
has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, 
but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international 
government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United 
States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could 
anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as 
one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole 
notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, 
where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights 
Commission should be an insult to all of us.
  In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, ``Well, if the 
U.N. straightens up, then we'll pay our dues this year; but maybe we'll 
withhold our dues next year.'' That is very, very weak; and it does not 
show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United 
Nations.
  It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is 
currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have 
been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide 
gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. 
They are taking guns away from civilians.
  If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns 
from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a 
nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the 
Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis 
were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own 
guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international 
gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on 
all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, 
but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to 
be discussed and they are moving in that direction.
  Today we have international government that manages trade through the

[[Page H4176]]

WTO. We have international government that manages all international 
financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international 
government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these 
institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They 
help the people who control the hands of power in these international 
institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and 
the international corporations.
  It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve 
peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay 
the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.
  The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the 
International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, 
oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans 
because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, 
like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.
  No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is 
okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the 
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in 
there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and 
leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides 
in Yugoslavia.
  But this presumption on our part that we can control the United 
Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow 
the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think 
we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, 
well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons 
and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or 
play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized 
that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a 
democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off.
  I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is 
wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a 
statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I 
think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing 
the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of 
proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated 
by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I 
was in Kosovo and in Albania during this case; and I will tell you, 
Mladic is a war criminal, and Karadzic, he is a war criminal, and 
Milosevic is a war criminal. So, without this, there would be no way to 
deal with it.
  Secondly, I have been in Sudan and Southern Sudan four times, the 
last time in January of this year. Whether you like it or not, the 
World Food Program is feeding the people of Sudan. As many people know, 
there have been 2.2 million Christians who have been killed in Sudan by 
the Khartoum Government, and if the World Food Program was not sending 
food in there, and Andrew Natsios and Roger Winter from the State 
Department are in Sudan as we now speak, this would just devastate that 
whole operation.
  I understand what the gentleman said with regard to the vote. We have 
language on page 112 of the report that says, ``The committee is deeply 
concerned by the secret ballot of the U.N. Member nations to keep the 
United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The exit of the 
United States and the election at the same time of the government of 
Sudan,'' the barbaric government of Sudan, which is sponsoring state-
sponsored terrorism, slavery and has been responsible for the death of 
2.2 million people, ``effectively cancels the ability of the United 
Nations to speak out or act with credibility on this issue.''
  We have been very, very forthright with regard to that. But the U.N. 
has been responsible for calls with regard to getting its financial 
house in order.
  In the Book of Luke, in the New Testament, it says to whom much is 
given, much is required. The King James version says ``required.'' For 
us not to be helping the starving people of Sudan through the U.N., the 
World Food Program, I think it would not be good for this country.
  This country has been blessed. We have been blessed because the 
American people are good and decent and honest and caring; and for us 
not to be participating to help to feed those in the South, 
particularly those who are Christian and Animists, who are being 
persecuted by the Khartoum Government, frankly would just have us 
walking away.
  So I think this is a bad, bad amendment. I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to get to. It is a bad, bad amendment; and I urge a 
no vote by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the case of Milosevic is 
a case that will come back to haunt us for two reasons: one, we are 
setting a precedent. This has never happened before. He was 
democratically elected in a country and democratically disposed. The 
country there was willing to prosecute him.
  The second part is that this stirs up tremendous anti-American 
sentiment. This is the reason why we are the greatest target in the 
world for terrorism, because of our intrusion into these areas, 
pretending that we always know best and that we will trample the law 
because it serves our self-interests. But I believe our national 
security and our interests are not best served in this manner. This 
policy is very dangerous.
  Likewise, we have had many examples of U.N. intervention. Rwanda, can 
we be proud of that? Can we be proud of what the U.N. and what our 
troops had to go through with the humiliation in Mogadishu in Somalia? 
I mean, this was horrible, what happened there. So good intentions will 
not suffice. Just because there are good intentions, it does not mean 
that good will come of it.
  There is an alternative to a single world government, and that is 
individual governments willing to get along; open and free trade as 
much as possible, free travel, people having a unified free market 
currency where we do not have currency devaluations and poverty 
throughout the world. There is a lot that can be done with freedom, 
rather than always depending, whether it is here in the United States 
or at the international level, on more government.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Paul amendment to prohibit 
funding for U.S. contributions. In my opinion, this would be not in the 
national interests of our country. With the support of the U.S., the 
U.N. and its agencies contribute dramatically in promoting 
international peace and security, nonproliferation, nuclear safety 
guards, human rights, reduction of health problems, humanitarian 
assistance, cooperation against international crime and sustainable 
development. In addition, the U.N. is leading the fight against HIV-
AIDS.
  The U.S. contribution to the U.N. and its affiliated agencies allows 
the United States to support these many important efforts without 
bearing the burden ourselves. The U.N. and its affiliated agencies have 
been responsive to our calls to incorporate financial and other reforms 
into their overall management practices, and we are continuing to press 
for even further improvements.
  At the urging of the U.S., the U.N. has streamlined its bureaucracy 
and cut waste from its budget. The Secretary General has been leading 
the fight and the U.N. has chartered a path of reform which has 
included the reduction of over 1,000 positions and maintenance of a no-
growth budget, not even to keep up with inflation for 8 years.
  The U.S. should recognize these achievements by paying our full 
share. The administration has been working hard to achieve the 
benchmarks contained in the Helms-Biden arrears authorization. It would 
be a tremendous setback to incur new arrears, just as we are working 
effectively with various U.S. organizations to allow us to pay those we 
already owe.

[[Page H4177]]

  Now, I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that on this House floor on many 
occasions people rise up with great anger towards the U.N. and what 
they perceive to be this fear of creating a separate world government 
that will somehow rule the whole world.
  The U.N. is far from that. But it is a group that works together to 
bring peace and to try to bring harmony throughout the world. There is 
a lot that needs to be done throughout this world, and the U.N. plays a 
major role; and therefore we should play a major role.
  So, to pull out, which is basically what this does, would be a 
terrible mistake; and I would hope that we defeat this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just going to end, I will not take the whole time, 
but there is so much going on in my mind. I kind of want to just say, 
America is a different country. We value the fundamental values that 
were in the Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, all men are created equal.'' Those words are known around 
the world.
  The fact that America has been involved, when Ronald Reagan gave the 
speech in Orlando, where he called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, it 
was one of the finest days, because he stood up for our fundamental 
values. And because of Ronald Reagan and the Pope and other people who 
spoke out for our values, we saw the Berlin Wall fall.
  We cannot remove ourselves. I believe that God has blessed this 
country, a blessing on this country, for the goodness of what we have 
done; for the fact that we are trying to feed the poor and the hungry 
and the naked. In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about going in and feeding 
the poor and the hungry and the naked. And America is always there. It 
is mandate that Jesus talks about in the Bible. So for us to just pull 
out and say, the hunger, the starvation, the HIV, the sickness, the 
sleeping sickness in Sudan, we are not going to be involved in, I think 
would be a mistake.
  I think this is a bad amendment. I understand what the gentleman 
says, and I know the U.N. has some serious problems. I have been very, 
very critical the U.N., and we will continue to watch over them, but we 
cannot adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just go ahead and close and respond to the 
gentleman that just spoke about the values. I agree entirely that our 
values deserve to be spread. The disagreement here is whether you do 
that through volunteerism or through force; through taxation and 
government guns and war; or whether you do this through demonstration 
by setting examples, setting the right tone in trade, setting the right 
tone in sound currencies, and sending our missionaries abroad.
  But it has not worked in the past, it will not work in the future, 
and, besides, all the good intentions backfire and it turns hostility 
towards us, even with the goal of trying to spread our values across 
the world. It cannot be done by force. It has to be done by other 
means.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. 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. 7 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used for any United States contribution for United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will 
control 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, quite possibly we will not have to take a long time on 
this. In many ways this is a similar amendment, but different with 
respect to as how the money would be spent after we send it to the 
United Nations.
  The amendment says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
be used for any United States contribution for the United Nations 
peacekeeping operations.''
  This is getting more specifically into the militarization of the 
United Nations and the unfairness of our bill that we get sent every 
year. We pay 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping missions. A lot of times 
we pay up front and pay in advance, and we do not get reimbursed. Then 
we hear a lot of complaints when we do not pay our dues.
  But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a 
United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, 
to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have 
justification based only on our national security, I see this money as 
being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us.
  It is not beyond comprehension that one day in the not-too-distant 
future that we may be in a much hotter war in the Yugoslovia area. 
Things are not very peaceful in Macedonia, and they are actually 
demonstrating against Americans in Macedonia. The same people that we 
supported in Kosovo, the KLA, now they have changed their name and they 
are the radical Albanians playing havoc in Macedonia. And it is with 
our money.
  And what do we do? We ask the American people to cough up. We tax 
them. We go over, and for 78 days, with the claim that we are bringing 
peace to the area, for 78 days we bombed that area, and now we are 
asking the American people to rebuild it. So first we tax them to bomb 
and destroy then we insist we rebuild the area.
  We did not bring peace by 78 days of bombing. As matter of fact, most 
of the death and destruction and hostility toward America was developed 
during those 78 days. It did not occur prior to that. There were few 
deaths in comparison. And who were the people killed with our bombs 
dropping from 30,000 feet? Were they military people? No. Innocent 
people, as they are in Iraq as well.
  It is out of control. It is out of our hands. We have lost control of 
our destiny when it comes to military operations. We now go to war 
under U.N. resolutions, rather than this Congress declaring war and 
fighting wars to win.
  We have given up a tremendous amount, and I believe it is time we 
stood up for the American people and the American taxpayer and say we 
ought to defend America, but we can deal with the problems of the world 
in a much different manner; not by militarizing and controlling it the 
best we can, the military operations of the United Nations, but 
pursuing the spreading of our values and our beliefs and the free 
market in a much different manner than by further taxation of the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take long. The U.N. is not in 
Macedonia; it is NATO in Macedonia. Quite frankly, if NATO had not been 
involved in Kosovo and Macedonia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans would 
have been inflamed. We know where World War II started and other wars 
which started there.

[[Page H4178]]

                              {time}  1830

  So, therefore, I think that has been in the best interests, by 
keeping peace, if you will.
  Besides that, we could continue to debate, but in the interest of 
time, I would just say that the Bush Administration would be strongly 
opposed to this, as is Secretary Powell and the State Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  In recognition of the importance that is placed on peacekeeping 
operations, the Bush administration requested and this subcommittee 
approved $844 million for the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping 
budget.
  U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping missions means that the U.S. 
does not have to bear the human, financial, or political burden of 
keeping the peace on its own. Of over 34,000 U.N. peacekeepers, 
observers, and military police serving in missions as of July 1, only 
661, or less than 2 percent, of these individuals are Americans.
  The U.N. recently lowered the U.S. assessment rate for U.N. 
peacekeeping from 31 percent to 27 percent. The U.S. has a 
responsibility to U.N. peacekeeping as a permanent member of the U.S. 
Security Council, through which it can veto any mission.
  U.N. peacekeeping missions are helping to maintain peace and 
stability in regions that are vital to U.S. interests such as the 
Middle East, Africa, and the Balkans. U.N. peacekeepers help to build 
peace in war-torn, unstable regions by providing humanitarian 
assistance, clearing mine fields, monitoring human rights and 
elections, and disarming the parties and allowing them to return to 
civilian society.
  Again, as in the previous amendment, this is one that is misguided. I 
have stood, as many have on this floor throughout the years, and spoken 
against military intervention on our part. I, however, believe that the 
best way for us to participate throughout the world in these situations 
is in a peacekeeping effort, and that is why I support them. I support 
what the subcommittee has done with this appropriation, and I would 
hope that we defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just close by saying that I urge a ``yes'' vote to stop the 
funding for the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, believing 
very sincerely that they do not do much good and they do harm and 
potentially a great deal of harm in the future. They do not serve our 
national self-interests. We have the United Nations now involved in the 
Middle East, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia, West Sahara, and 
Yugoslavia. It requires a lot of money. The most likely thing to come 
of all of this will be more hostility toward America and more 
likelihood that we will be attacked by terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative-salaries and expenses'' may be used to 
     initiate a proceeding in the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     challenging any law or policy of a developing country that 
     promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical 
     technologies to the population of the country.
       (b) In this section, the term ``developing country'' means 
     a country that has a per capita income which does not exceed 
     that of an upper middle income country, as defined in the 
     World Development Report published by the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; and I reserve 
a point of order on the amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the use of funds to 
initiate proceedings in the World Trade Organization challenging 
policies in developing countries that promote access to HIV/AIDS.
  The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment would restore the ability 
of developing countries to pass laws for the purpose of making HIV/AIDS 
drugs available to their citizens. The amendment would prevent WTO 
challenges to HIV/AIDS drugs laws by the United States.
  Passage of the amendment would reduce a substantial obstacle imposed 
by the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights, also known as the TRIPS Agreement.
  The threat of WTO sanctions against a country for its policies on 
HIV/AIDS drugs and the uncertainty of the scope of the WTO rules 
significantly reduces the flexibility of countries to address the HIV/
AIDS epidemic. Developing countries cannot afford the expensive, brand-
name, anti-retroviral drugs that sell for over $10,000 per patient per 
year in industrialized countries.
  Zambia, for example, has an AIDS infection rate of almost 10 percent 
and a per capita income of only $330. Nevertheless, the WTO has been 
used to prevent developing countries from making HIV/AIDS drugs 
available to their populations at affordable prices.
  Brazil has developed an HIV/AIDS program that is a model for 
developing countries. The World Bank and the United Nations cite 
Brazil's program as one of the best in the world.
  In 1998, the government of Brazil began manufacturing and 
distributing generic anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/
AIDS; and the prices of these drugs fell by an average of 79 percent. 
Brazil now distributes free anti-retroviral drugs to 90,000 Brazilians, 
ensuring that all citizens who need HIV/AIDS drugs have access to them.
  The Brazilian Health Ministry spent $444 million on AIDS drugs in 
2000, a total of 4 percent of its budget. Yet Brazil's program most 
certainly pays for itself. The decline in hospitalizations from 
opportunistic infections between 1997 and 1999 saved the health 
ministry $422 million. The program has also increased the productivity 
of infected individuals who can now lead active lives and family 
members who no longer need to care for the sick.
  Despite the success of Brazil's program, the United States Trade 
Representative challenged Brazil for violating WTO intellectual 
property laws; and the WTO agreed to establish a panel to rule on the 
case.
  If the United States had won the case, the WTO would have authorized 
the United States to impose punitive economic sanctions on Brazil. 
Fortunately, the United States withdrew its case against Brazil on June 
25, 2001, in response to tremendous public pressure.
  The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment would enable developing 
countries to provide cost-effective treatment for people with HIV/AIDS 
through the production and distribution of generic HIV/AIDS drugs. If 
this amendment had been long, the United States would not have 
initiated a WTO case against Brazil to overturn its award-winning and 
effective HIV/AIDS policies.
  The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment has been endorsed by OXFAM 
America, the AFL-CIO, Jubilee USA Network, the Global AIDS Alliance, 
the Washington Alliance on Africa, Result and Health Gap. I urge my 
colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on his point of 
order?

[[Page H4179]]

                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because the amendment proposes to change the existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues to 
examine the opposition to our ability to take up this important 
amendment. It is not driven by any conflict. It is not driven by any 
letter of the law that would not allow this amendment to be taken up. I 
know the tremendous pressures that are being presented, but I do not 
think that anybody on either side of the aisle can look the world in 
the face and support policies that would allow our United States Trade 
Representative to create a case in the WTO against countries that are 
literally dying, with its citizens dying in record numbers day in and 
day out.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia not to proceed 
with this parliamentary maneuver in order to stop this amendment. The 
world is watching.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time under my point of order, I 
would like to comment before the Chair rules, if I may.
  This is not a parliamentary maneuver. The gentlewoman is not the only 
person who is interested in these issues.
  I was in the Congo in January. We were in Rwanda and Burundi and up 
in the Sudan. The gentlewoman is not the only person interested in 
this. The fact that we asked for a point of order does not mean it is a 
parliamentary maneuver.
  Also, if the gentlewoman takes the time to go to page 100, we asked 
for the Africa policy. The committee is concerned about their lack of 
sufficient attention to foreign policy issues regarding Africa and 
supports the Department's efforts to improve the effectiveness, and we 
go on and on. We also say this amendment goes far beyond what is 
necessary.
  In February, the Bush administration, and I want to put this on the 
record, because it sounds like the gentlewoman from California is the 
only one that cares about this, the Bush administration affirmed that 
it would not object to developing countries using the proficiencies of 
WTO to improve access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. In June, the 
administration decided to terminate its WTO patent dispute with Brazil, 
in part because some people believe that this dispute interferes with 
Brazil's effective AIDS program. The FDA office is committed to 
ensuring that the WTO members are able to use the flexibility built 
into the WTO to address the emergency and health care needs.
  It goes beyond that. So it is not a maneuver. It is just a point of 
order, and it is subject to a decision.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard further?
  Ms. WATERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  This is not about I am the only one who cares about this issue. I am 
the only one offering this amendment today.
  I am pleased that the gentleman has gone to the Congo and Rwanda. I 
am pleased that the gentleman knows something about Africa. Let me ask 
the gentleman if he knows that 36 million people are currently living 
with HIV/AIDS and 95 percent of them are living in developing 
countries. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, over 25 million people are 
living with HIV/AIDS, and 6,000 people die of AIDS-related diseases 
every day.
  This has nothing to do with whether or not I care or I am the only 
one that cares. It is time to put our public policy and our money where 
our mouths are. People are dying in unprecedented and shameful numbers. 
I would say to the gentleman, it is not about whether or not the 
gentleman challenges whether I care more than he. It is not about 
whether or not we have traveled to Africa. It is whether or not we saw 
what was happening in Africa, that we feel it in our hearts, and we are 
ready to do the right thing by people who need our help.
  This is simply about public policy. This is not even about money. 
This is about whether or not the gentleman is going to allow our United 
States Trade Representative to represent all of us and comply with 
rules that have been described by some on this floor as rules that are 
developed outside of government to protect the interests of the 
pharmaceuticals or other private companies who do not have it in their 
hearts to make sure that people are able to afford drugs that will save 
their lives. Are we going to sit here in the United States of America 
and watch people die day in and day out and not have it in our hearts 
to simply say, WTO, back off? That is what this is all about, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I would ask that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) not use this 
parliamentary maneuver and back off from trying to use this as a way to 
oppose what I think is excellent public policy that we can all be proud 
of.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California proposes to 
limit funding for certain proceedings in the World Trade Organization 
by the United States Trade Representative to challenge laws if those 
laws bear a certain relationship to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. By 
requiring the United States Trade Representative to discover the effect 
of foreign laws, the amendment imposes new duties in violation of 
clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.

                              {time}  1845


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) offer the amendment as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Yes, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from 
California, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative-salaries and expenses'' may be used to 
     initiate a proceeding in the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     pursuant to any provision of the Agreement on Trade-Related 
     Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (as described in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3511(d)(15))) challenging any law of a country that is 
     not a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development (OECD) relating to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a 
point of order against the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will 
be recognized to claim the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1998, every AIDS patient in Brazil for whom it is 
medically indicated gets for free the AIDS triple cocktail drug 
treatment. This is extraordinary because, according to U.N.-AID, in 
developing countries less than 10 percent of people with HIV/AIDS have 
access to the anti-retroviral therapy.
  The high price of many AIDS drugs, especially anti-retroviral drugs, 
is one of the main barriers to their availability in developing 
countries. Brazil can afford to treat AIDS because it does not pay 
market prices for anti-retroviral drugs.
  In 1998, the Brazilian government began making copies of brand name 
drugs, and the price of those medicines has fallen by an average of 79 
percent.

[[Page H4180]]

  The U.N. and the World Bank have praised Brazil's AIDS drug program, 
but what did the U.S. do? The U.S. lodged a complaint with the WTO 
alleging that Brazil's program violated the agreement on intellectual 
property.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of America know that our country is a 
country with a big heart, but where is the heart here? USTR was wrong 
and offensive when it brought a WTO challenge against Brazil.
  There are those who say that pharmaceutical companies can voluntarily 
and effectively take care of the shortage of HIV/AIDS drugs. In only 
one developing country, Brazil, do 100 percent of the people with HIV/
AIDS get anti-retroviral drugs. No other developing country could say 
the same thing, even though a couple have concluded charity agreements 
with pharmaceutical companies.
  In other words, this is the most effective way to address the AIDS 
epidemic in developing countries, the way Brazil did it. Yet the U.S. 
brought a WTO case against Brazil.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order on the 
amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waters amendment. 
There are many of us who share her concerns for the need to provide 
access to affordable HIV/AIDS drugs in developing nations. I myself 
have traveled to nations in Africa three times in the last year and a 
half, and have obviously witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of 
this disease on individuals.
  For many developing countries in Africa, the problem is not access to 
drugs, but it is lack of an infrastructure in place to distribute drugs 
to those who are in need, and it is cultural differences that continue 
to stigmatize those who have HIV/AIDS.
  But the Waters amendment goes beyond providing affordable drugs in 
developing countries. It will have a negative effect in other 
industries like software, music, literature, movies. In essence, it 
prevents the United States Trade Representative from protecting 
American innovation from counterfeits or piracy against countries most 
likely to be involved in violations.
  Piracy continues to be a problem in many countries, such as China. 
Once China enters the WTO, it must comply with international 
intellectual property rights standards. It simply does not make sense 
for us to negotiate China's WTO membership while simultaneously 
hindering our United States Trade Representative from ensuring that 
China comply with all the standards.
  International intellectual property rights standards are important, 
and they are essential in preventing theft and piracy of American 
products. We should do more, not less, to ensure compliance and 
enforcement of these standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from the area of the United States where the 
largest private foundation contributes the largest amount of money to 
the solution of HIV/AIDS. It is the Gates Foundation. But I also come 
from the area of the country where we know how important it is to 
protect our intellectual property on all levels from piracy.
  That is what I stand behind, sensitivity to solve a problem, but 
good, rational thinking in terms of what we allow our U.S. 
representative to negotiate on behalf of American business. This 
amendment is a step in the wrong direction, and I ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the testimony that was just 
given by the gentlewoman spoke to another amendment, certainly not to 
the one that is on the floor. This amendment is tailored specifically 
to HIV/AIDS. It has nothing to do with intellectual property and any of 
the other areas that she described.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the assertion that the amendment will lead to slowing 
new discoveries and discourage more pharmaceutical innovation has to be 
answered.
  The argument is basically, I believe, a defense of high profits. 
Developing countries are so poor, however, that no pharmaceutical 
company can logically depend on profits earned in Africa to fund 
research.
  It has been also mentioned that the WTO agreement on trade aspects of 
intellectual property already contains a humanitarian exception for 
health and other emergencies, so therefore, this amendment would not be 
needed. However, the United States brought a WTO case against Brazil, 
nonetheless. The TRIPS agreement was agreed to by the U.S. in 1995, 
while the U.S. case against Brazil was launched in June, 2000. Clearly, 
the exception is not enough, and congressional action is needed.
  I know the gentleman from Virginia is a caring person, and we are all 
caring people here. We just hope that through bringing this debate 
forward today, we can have an opportunity to heighten the concern of 
this Congress about this issue, because it really is repugnant to 
morality to have people dying all over the world because of some trade 
squabble when the truth is that all trade agreements should exist to 
facilitate the human condition, and not to erode it through trying to 
engage in arguments about intellectual property when the fact of the 
matter is that people are suffering and they need help.
  I know that the gentleman from Virginia is one of the champions on 
making sure that the concerns of people who are suffering and who need 
help are heard. So I want to appeal to all Members of Congress that 
soon we must come to grips with this issue to help the suffering people 
of the world and those who are dealing with AIDS, and the United States 
should be the last country in the world to object to a nation's trying 
to find a way to deal with their own AIDS problems. We should be in 
support of Brazil, not trying to undermine Brazil's efforts to treat 
the people of their country who have AIDS.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) for giving me the opportunity to present this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for 
bringing this amendment and for bringing the issue to the floor. There 
will be, I believe, 40 million orphans in the year 2015 in Africa, and 
hopefully by putting pressure and raising these issues, I know 
Secretary Powell is very, very concerned. One of the first meetings I 
had when I got back is we met with Secretary Powell. We raised the 
issue of Sudan and AIDS. I will send the gentleman my report.
  So I think it is good and healthy that it is out so people are forced 
to address it.


                             point of order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will 
state his point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. 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 
imposing additional duties.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, again, I make the 
same appeal. I see this as a parliamentary maneuver to avoid taking a 
vote on this legislation that I think a lot of Members on both sides of 
the aisle would support.
  I do not think that the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle 
could stand up and cite that there are 40 million orphans and talk 
about the devastation without knowing that he has it within his power, 
as he stands here today, to allow this amendment to be before this 
House. One does not have that kind of power and not use it when one 
absolutely cares about something.

[[Page H4181]]

  The gentleman again, as with the gentlewoman, talked about their 
trips to Africa. What good does it do to keep going to Africa on these 
CODELs if one does not see the suffering of the people there, if one 
does not understand the dying that is going on in Africa?
  What good is it to go there if one cannot come back and put that into 
public policy that will save lives?
  Now is the time to demonstrate what one cares about with regard to 
Africa, and what we have seen in Africa.
  Again, this is not about an allocation of dollars, this is about 
allowing countries to take care of themselves. This is about saying to 
WTO, do not challenge these countries on their ability to produce 
generic drugs. Allow them to do what Brazil has done. They have done it 
and it has been cost-effective, and they are saving lives.
  If a Member cares about Africa, if one has internalized what they 
have seen when they have traveled there on these CODELs, watching 
people die, watching the orphans, watching these countries falling 
apart, then now is the time to use the gentleman's power to do 
something about it.
  If the power is in the hands of the gentleman on the other side of 
the aisle to remove his objection, his challenge to this amendment, 
then I would respectfully plead with him to please do that today, and 
demonstrate that he understands that devastation, he understands those 
40 million children that he has identified, all without parents. 
Children are running around. They are going to die, too. There is 
nobody to care for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this attempt to challenge the legality 
of this amendment to be on the floor is without merit, and I would ask 
the gentleman to withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone further wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is ready to rule. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) proposes to limit funding for 
certain proceedings in the World Trade Organization by the United 
States Trade Representative to challenge laws if those laws bear a 
certain relationship to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals.
  By requiring the United States Trade Representative to discover the 
effect of foreign laws, and based on the Chair's prior ruling, the 
amendment imposes new duties in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
the point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. 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. 12 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative-salaries and expenses'' may be used to 
     initiate a proceeding in the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     pursuant to any provision of the Agreement on Trade-Related 
     Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (as described in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3511(d)(15))) challenging any law of a country that is 
     not a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development (OECD).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member 
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we just saw the attempts to try 
and pass a very reasonable amendment. Both I and the gentleman from 
Ohio attempted to do that. We saw the parliamentary maneuver.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment does not face that challenge. 
However, I know that it is going to be opposed by the same forces.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express my strong support as a 
cosponsor of the Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment. I want to thank 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her consistent 
leadership on each and every issue that affects the human family that 
we deal with here in this House.
  This important amendment would restore the ability of developing 
countries to pass laws that make HIV and AIDS pharmaceuticals and 
medical technologies accessible to people living with HIV and AIDS.
  The global AIDS crisis is the greatest humanitarian pandemic of our 
time. There are 36 million people worldwide living with AIDS. In sub-
Saharan Africa alone, 6,000 people die each and every day from HIV and 
AIDS.

                              {time}  1900

  The United Nations estimates that without a comprehensive response to 
this crisis, by 2005, there will be 100 million people infected with 
HIV and AIDS. That is over 100 million people. That is mind-boggling.
  This amendment will allow African nations and those in developing 
countries to close the gap in access to HIV and AIDS therapies for 
people living with AIDS. Existing World Trade Organization policies 
unduly restrict the flexibility of countries to address the HIV and 
AIDS pandemic. This results in lives being lost.
  By supporting the Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment, we will 
reinforce our support for countries to address their own crisis. Of the 
36 million people living with HIV and AIDS, 95 percent of them, that is 
95 percent, live in developing countries and really cannot afford any 
medication. They really do face a death sentence.
  This is a moral outrage. We must not tolerate the current policy 
which dictates that life with a manageable illness is possible only, 
only if one has money, only if one is wealthy. However, death from AIDS 
is certain if one is poor.
  For example, the continent of Africa accounts for only 1.3 percent of 
the global pharmaceutical market. That is because the average person 
lives on less than $300 a year while the average AIDS treatment may 
cost as much as $15,000 per year. Africans, poor people, people living 
in poverty, simply cannot afford drugs at the current price.
  We have only just begun our battle with this global killer. So I 
strongly urge all my colleagues to do the right thing and vote for this 
amendment. We must not only talk about our moral concerns about this 
horrendous pandemic, but we must support public policies to solve it.
  Finally, as Members of Congress in the most powerful country in the 
world, we must remember ``to whom much is given, much is expected.''
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time and giving me an opportunity to work with her on this.
  The amendment which is proposed by myself and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) states that none of the funds appropriated in 
this act under the heading of the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative Salaries and Expenses may be used to initiate a 
proceeding in the World Trade Organization pursuant to any provision of 
the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights.
  It is really important for us to establish the context of why we are 
here. People are dying from AIDS all over the world; and we know that 
there are drugs, anti-retroviral drugs, which can be used to treat the 
people that can help save them. All over America, the people of America 
support the idea of helping others in need. The very thought that we 
can have these drugs in existence and have suffering people and them 
not being able to connect with suffering people has to cause everyone 
to be ashamed. Yet our own country has used the World Trade 
Organization as a vehicle to defeat the work of a nation that is trying 
to treat its own AIDS patients, saying it interferes with the 
intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies.
  Since when do intellectual property rights become more important than 
human life? Since when? We need to get this in perspective. And the 
perspective is that we have a moral obligation to help those people who 
are suffering; that we have a moral obligation to challenge the WTO and 
not to

[[Page H4182]]

ask the WTO to impress on the backs of the sick people of the world a 
yoke of intellectual dishonesty in the name of protecting intellectual 
agreements.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the 
amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  I would also like to thank my colleagues for having the foresight to 
offer this amendment at a time when so many developing and undeveloped 
countries are seeing their societies, their very social 
infrastructures, decimated by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  Mr. Chairman, last year I visited sub-Saharan Africa and saw 
firsthand what most Americans only read about. I saw a generation of 
kids growing up without parents, without teachers, and without health 
care providers because of HIV/AIDS. The decimation of these countries 
must stop.
  HIV/AIDS drugs are not the only solution, but they are part of the 
solution. Our opponents in the multinational pharmaceutical companies 
point to their generosity in providing HIV/AIDS drugs to the developing 
world. While their philanthropy is certainly appreciated, there are 
other ways to solve this problem than to depend on multinational 
corporations for handouts. UNAIDS has stated that even with all the 
donation programs in place, only 10 percent of those infected by HIV/
AIDS in the developing world will have access to these drugs.
  The Waters-Kucinich-Lee amendment would restore the ability of 
developing countries to pass laws and produce HIV/AIDS drugs for their 
citizens. The amendment would prevent World Trade Organization 
challenges to HIV/AIDS drug laws by the United States related to HIV/
AIDS drugs. In effect, this amendment would codify current 
administration policy supported by President Bush which has suspended 
any international copyright laws in the United States against countries 
in the developing world for producing HIV/AIDS drugs.
  This amendment allows countries to institute policies and laws to 
facilitate provisions of sorely-needed pharmaceuticals to those 
suffering with HIV and AIDS. It is not, I repeat not, designed to 
undermine the World Trade Organization's intellectual property rights 
provisions.
  Some have stated that pharmaceuticals used to treat and control HIV/
AIDS are too toxic to be used by those in developing countries; that 
the infrastructure required to correctly use these drugs is lacking in 
these countries. Mr. Chairman, the people in these developing countries 
do have watches, they can tell time, and they do know that time is 
running out. This amendment needs to be passed.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
Frankly, I am disappointed that this amendment is even necessary. It 
should be obvious that the United States would support all efforts to 
provide affordable medicine to the people of developing nations who are 
suffering with AIDS. It should be a given that when a nation like 
Brazil develops an effective program to address the AIDS crisis 
threatening its people that the United States would stand up and salute 
its good work.
  The developing world in particular has been devastated by the AIDS 
epidemic, with millions of people affected and millions of people dying 
and a generation of orphaned children left behind. The manufacturing of 
affordable generic drugs is a crucial element in finally getting 
control of this terrible disease. We should be encouraging more nations 
to do that, rather than threatening them with lawsuits at the World 
Trade Organization to protect the bottom line of multibillion dollar 
drug companies. It is unconscionable that we would put money over 
lives.
  It was only because of the public pressure, led in large part by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), and so many others in this body, that the United 
States finally dropped its lawsuit. But there is no assurance that the 
big drug companies will not pour their money into lobbying the United 
States Government to bring another lawsuit like it.
  That is why we need this amendment today. With this amendment we 
would prevent the United States from shamefully pursuing commercial 
interests before the health and well-being of millions of people 
affected with this terrible disease. It would encourage developing 
nations to responsibly address the AIDS crisis and bring lifesaving 
treatment to their citizens.
  The role of this Nation for several years in preventing people in 
southern Africa from having access to lifesaving drugs is shameful. I 
thank God that we are no longer doing that. This amendment will ensure 
that we will not even think about doing it again in the future. It is a 
very important amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time and for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the crisis of AIDS in Africa and in developing 
countries around the globe demands our attention. We read of these 
devastating painful accounts of men and women and children dying 
without access to drugs that will sustain their lives. Last year, the 
number of children who died from AIDS reached a staggering half a 
million. We hear of orphans, a generation of orphans, who are entering 
our world in some of the worst imaginable conditions. Right now, in 
Africa, 10 million young orphans are struggling to survive.
  We know there are governments throughout the world, developing 
countries, I should say, straining to deal with this crisis. But 
instead of helping, our government is pursuing a path that could make 
the AIDS crisis even worse. Under a perverse rule within the World 
Trade Organization, the United States, as we have heard already on this 
floor, brought a suit, a case against Brazil and its AIDS policy. 
Brazil found a way to get HIV/AIDS drugs into the hands of anyone who 
needed them by manufacturing generic versions of these vital medicines 
and distributing them free of charge.
  This policy has received praise from agencies and individuals who are 
intimately involved in this issue from around the world: the United 
Nations, the World Bank, and many other organizations. But our trade 
officials apparently thought that corporate intellectual property 
rights are more important than the lives of the people being saved by 
these drugs. After heavy public pressure from many of my colleagues 
here, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), many of my colleagues in this body, after 
heavy pressure, the U.S. finally withdrew its case. But the next time, 
Mr. Chairman, it could be different.
  Today, I join my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and all 
the others, in offering an amendment to ensure this will never, ever 
happen again.
  The United States should be supportive of efforts to help alleviate 
the tremendous suffering throughout the world from the AIDS epidemic. 
We should not be using international trade organizations like the WTO 
to undermine a developing country's ability to get HIV/AIDS medication 
into the hands of their own citizens who cannot live without them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank my 
colleague from California and the others for their leadership in 
presenting it to us this evening.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) claims the time 
in opposition, and yields such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier).

[[Page H4183]]

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding me this time; and, Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this 
amendment.
  We all are very concerned about the scourge of HIV/AIDS around the 
world. We just, upstairs in the Committee on Rules, reported out the 
very important rule on foreign operations, which we will be considering 
in this House. In it there is nearly a doubling, a doubling, of the 
level of funding for HIV/AIDS. We all are very concerned about it. We 
all want to do everything that we possibly can to bring this very, very 
serious problem to an end; and that is why we have doubled the level of 
funding.
  But to proceed with language which undermines one of the most basic 
principles on which this country was founded, that being property 
rights, is something that I find extremely troubling. We know that 
intellectual property is important to our State of California. I see my 
colleague here, the author of this amendment, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), who knows very well that in California we have 
a very important biotechnology industry. In California, we have the 
extremely important entertainment industry. We know that that property 
which our California constituents have must be recognized, and this 
amendment clearly undermines the opportunity that our U.S. Trade 
Representative has in dealing with so-called TRIPS challenges, the 
intellectual property challenges that exist.

                              {time}  1915

  Because there are people around the world who are stealing our 
property. It is wrong. The prospect of eliminating those methods that 
we have for recourse to those who are stealing our property should not 
take place.
  When I look at the tremendous innovation that is taking place in the 
area of medical research, we are right now in the midst of the debate 
of embryonic stem cell research. Very compelling evidence has come 
forward about the prospect in looking at ways in which we can deal with 
the very serious ailments out there such as, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
hemophilia, AIDS, asthma, cancer, on and on and on.
  Guess what? This innovation is being done right here in the United 
States, the idea of saying to those who are looking at new and 
innovative ways to deal with these diseases and others who are 
potentially going to have their private property stolen if we eliminate 
this very important power that exists with the U.S. Trade 
Representative.
  We obviously all share very serious concerns about the spread of HIV 
and AIDS. I believe that we again have demonstrated our concern when we 
in this House vote out the foreign operations appropriations bill which 
will double the level of funding for dealing with that.
  This is a very bad amendment. It seriously undermines the right to 
protect the important property rights that we as Americans cherish so.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her leadership on this important issue.
  Before I speak in support of the Waters-Kucinich-Crowley amendment I 
want to commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his 
unsurpassed leadership on helping to meet the needs of people 
throughout the world, people who are suffering.
  I know that many of us travel as CODELs and visit countries and do 
not really see the real suffering, as my colleague so correctly pointed 
out. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is not in that 
category. In fact, he is known to visit very quietly by himself, 
whether it is those who are hungry in the Sudan or wherever suffering 
exists in our country. I want to recognize the compassion and 
leadership he has always demonstrated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise. I do not know if you are supporting 
this amendment. I assume not from your comments. I do rise in support 
of the amendment to prevent our government from challenging the ability 
of developing countries to pass laws that make HIV/AIDS drugs available 
to their citizens.
  Some have expressed concerns about the extent to which this bill 
goes. We all know what the heart of matter is, what we are trying to 
achieve.
  International trade law allows countries to take action during a 
public health emergency. It would be absurd to claim that the AIDS 
crisis in the developed world is not a public health crisis. We have 
heard the staggering statistics: 36 million people infected with HIV, 
22 million deaths from AIDS, and nearly 14 million children orphaned, 
over 95 percent of these cases found in the developing world. AIDS is 
the number one cause of death in Africa.
  Not only is this a public health emergency, it is the worst public 
health crisis since the Middle Ages. As the world's wealthiest, most 
powerful country, the United States must be a leader in this fight, not 
a barrier to progress.
  Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, ``AIDS in Africa is a plague of 
biblical proportions. It is holy war we must win.''
  It is indeed, and the battles in this war occur on many fronts.
  Brazil is waging one of those battles, and it is winning. Despite 
prices that are well out of reach for most of its citizens, nearly 
every AIDS patient in Brazil in need of AIDS drugs receives treatment. 
This unprecedented access to therapy has been achieved through a 
government program that makes copies of brand name drugs. Compulsory 
licensing provisions in international trade law allow this practice, 
and the result for Brazil has been a 50 percent reduction in the AIDS 
death rate, fewer HIV transmissions, the prevention of hundreds of 
thousands of hospital admissions, and significant savings to its 
healthcare system.
  This amazing success was threatened when the U.S. brought a WTO case 
against Brazil for its HIV/AIDS policies. Earlier this year, this case 
was withdrawn in response to public pressure. If this effort had been 
successful, Brazil would have faced punitive economic sanctions, 
countless lives would have been lost unnecessarily and other poor 
nations would have been deterred from replicating Brazil's success.
  AIDS can be treated in the developing world. U.S. Trade 
Representatives should not be standing in the way.
  I know we will be hearing from the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), who is an expert on copyright and 
international property laws, as to how we can all meet our goals and in 
a very, very productive way.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the meantime to support the 
Waters-Kucinich-Crowley amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) yielding me the time. I also appreciate very 
much the parliamentary predicament that she has been in.
  The gentlewoman from California is trying to deal with a critical 
emergency affecting millions and millions of people. She is trying to 
ensure that HIV/AIDS pharmaceutical are available to the people in 
third world countries. Forced by the parliamentary maneuvering up to 
now, she has been required to present an amendment which goes far 
beyond HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. It goes far beyond pharmaceuticals. It 
covers all copyrighted material, patented material and creates this 
compulsory license mechanism. So she has been forced to present an 
amendment which I think a lot of people, certainly me, think is 
overbroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman in the time she has yielded to me 
whether she would consider a unanimous consent request to bring this 
language back to the whole purpose of her Herculean efforts here to 
make these pharmaceuticals accessible to people who desperately need 
them?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) giving support to us on this issue. I know, too, how hard 
he has worked not only on this issue but other related issues.
  As the gentleman knows, I was attempting simply to deal with the HIV/
AIDS issue and not have this in a broader context. I know that the 
pharmaceuticals do not like this. But I also

[[Page H4184]]

know that the world pressure that was brought on them in the case of 
Brazil backed them down.
  We do not want to have to continue to go that route. I would say to 
the gentleman that I would be happy to have a unanimous consent request 
to amend this amendment so that it would conform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I object, because it goes back to what we were faced 
with before. I commend the gentlewoman for trying to do what she wants 
to do.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the unanimous consent 
request has been made.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) was recognized by the Chair, 
and he was stating his position for the gentleman's edification. There 
has been no request. He was stating his position.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that we are being prevented from 
amending this bill in such a way that it will do what we started out to 
do, and relates specifically to HIV/AIDS. I think that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman) made the case, and the case is one that we 
recognize.


         Modification of Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the bill 
to comply with keeping this in line with dealing with HIV/AIDS in the 
WTO.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Add at the end the following: ``that promotes access to 
     HIV/AIDS, pharmaceuticals and essential medicines to the 
     population of the country.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate and we have had 
objections from the opposite side of the aisle now on three occasions. 
Again, I thought we were able to make the case and to point out that it 
is within our power to move this amendment and to do something about 
the devastation of Africa, the dying that is going on.
  I ask my colleagues to disregard all of the comments they hear about 
the culture does not know how to accommodate using medications.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to disregard comments about the 
infrastructure is such that it is better that we do not try to do 
something about presenting the people of Africa with this opportunity.
  This is another parliamentary maneuver to block us from having an 
amendment that would deal directly with getting the WTO out of the 
business of making a case out of countries simply taking care of their 
AIDS patients who need medicine.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to talk a lot about the pharmaceuticals 
here this evening. We know how powerful they are, and we know that they 
are in opposition to this amendment. We know that the pharmaceuticals 
will hold out as long as we allow them to and watch people die, 
thousands of them by the day, to protect their intellectual property 
rights, to protect their patents, to protect their whatever.
  Again, public policymakers should not allow any special interest to 
have that much power. It is within the power of the Members of this 
House to do something about it. We can simply move this amendment this 
evening and not allow our trade representative to take this case to the 
World Trade Organization. The people of Africa are watching. We know 
that it works when a country decides to provide generic drugs to its 
people because we have seen it work already, not only in Brazil but in 
India also. We know that it works. The pharmaceuticals know that it 
works.
  But we are going to sit here and say somehow that this is improper, 
that this does not comport with the way that we do business. Those are 
simply flimsy obstacles that everybody can see through.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle 
who is leading the opposition to remove himself and to take the moral 
position of saving lives. It is within the gentleman's power by simply 
saying one or two words here this evening on the floor that he will 
support my amendment to amend this legislation so that it deals 
specifically with HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. It is not a maneuver. There are 
rules in the House. The amendment goes far beyond what is necessary to 
addressing the countries' AIDS crisis.
  The gentlewoman ought to take her energy and meet with Secretary 
Powell. The gentlewoman ought to take her energy and meet with the 
trade rep. The gentlewoman ought to take her energy and meet with 
President Bush at the White House. The gentlewoman ought to take her 
energy and advocate this up and down the country. We have rules. We 
have procedures.

                              {time}  1930

  It is interesting. I find myself in agreement with much of what she 
says, but I do not find agreement in the approach that she has taken. 
And because I do not find myself in agreement with the approach that 
she has taken, we are going to oppose the amendment.
  Why does she not take her energy and meet with the Secretary of 
State. Has she made a request to meet with Secretary Powell? Why does 
she not take her energy and make a request to meet with the Trade Rep? 
Has she asked to meet with the Trade Rep? Why does she not do that and 
then by bringing people together, trying to resolve it with people, 
good people of faith, there may be a greater opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I resent the gentleman lecturing me about how I ought to use my time. 
I was elected by the people of my district to make public policy. They 
did not necessarily elect me to go and do any of the things he is 
instructing me to do. They elected me to come here, to identify the 
issues, to debate the issues, to work on the issues. I know how to use 
my time. And I use it effectively.
  I would say to the gentleman, he should be more concerned about how 
he uses his time and his power rather than trying to instruct me on how 
I should use my time. I think that this amendment and the work that I 
am doing is the right thing to do. I think that it is the moral thing 
to do. I think that it is the spiritual thing to do. I think it is the 
religious thing to do. I do not know how anybody who has got the power 
in their hands, who work in this body, standing before the world, can 
oppose an amendment that would save the lives of millions of people. I 
do not know how anybody who can know intimately the devastation that is 
going on in Africa, who admits they have traveled there, who can talk 
eloquently about having gone to the Congo and other places, I do not 
know how they can take that information and somehow shape it into a 
result that says despite the fact I know all of this, I have seen all 
of this, I understand all of this and I am a faithful and upstanding 
person, but yet when it comes to the bottom line, I cannot do it.
  I cannot do it because of what? I cannot do it because the 
pharmaceuticals do not want me to do it? I cannot do it because my 
caucus does not want me to do it? I cannot do it because of what?
  I cannot do it because it is not important enough. It does not occupy 
priority on his agenda. He cannot do it because he does not have the 
will to do it.
  I have listened to Members come to the floor and commend him for 
being a generous man, for being a caring man, for being someone who has 
traveled to Africa, but there is a contradiction in all of this. The 
contradiction is quite

[[Page H4185]]

clear. Mr. Chairman, you cannot know this story, you cannot have 
watched these babies die, you cannot watch these families where mother 
and father both are dead and children living without resources, in 
shacks and tents, you cannot say that you have seen all of that and 
somehow you cannot be moved to do whatever is necessary, to put your 
mark on making sure the people get the drugs that they need in order to 
live. Our United States Trade Representative was not elected by the 
people. It is an appointed position. We should be telling the United 
States Trade Representative what to do and how to represent us. We 
should be telling her, you are not to go to the World Trade 
Organization and take up this issue against the people. But since we 
are not willing to do that, we take an amendment like this and say, 
``You can't use our resources to do it.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment. I began my work against HIV in 1986. The first HIV test was 
produced in Deerfield, Illinois, in my district. It cost hundreds of 
millions of dollars to produce and alerted us to a crisis of AIDS in 
Africa. But if this amendment had become law in 1987, just when we 
realized the magnitude of the problem, all major AIDS drugs would have 
been shelved and there would have been no money for the production of 
those drugs.
  AZT was developed, and it offers chronic care of HIV. Kaletra is now 
on the market, and it drives viral loads to zero. Both drugs were 
discovered without U.S. taxpayer funds, and these drugs are saving 
lives. Now over 50 new drugs are under development. But this amendment 
would stop the development of those drugs in their tracks. If these new 
drugs come to patients, we can cure AIDS, and we can develop a new 
vaccine that will stop anyone else from getting AIDS. But our solution 
is not to destroy the intellectual property law of the United States, a 
law which is founded in our own Constitution and produced a country 
that won more Nobel Prizes than any other country. The answer is 
funding for programs like UNAIDS. I helped found the UNAIDS program in 
1986 as a staffer for John Porter. And funding for that program went 
from $25 million to over $1 billion. Hope, research, and funding for 
UNAIDS is the answer, not throwing scientists out of work upon whom our 
hope depends.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for yielding me this time. I am proud to support the Waters-Kucinich 
amendment and urge its passage.
  Just imagine for a minute if the United States Government decided it 
could provide generic anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/
AIDS to all those who are infected at minimal or no cost, and as a 
result we saw AIDS deaths plummet in the United States. Now imagine if 
another nation challenged the United States on the grounds that we were 
violating the intellectual property rights of a pharmaceutical company 
and that that other government went hand in hand with the 
pharmaceutical company to the WTO and challenged the right of the 
United States to take care of its citizens. I am sure that if that 
happened, that Members would be flocking to the House floor protesting 
the action and calling on the United States to simply ignore the WTO 
and continue this lifesaving program.
  It was 1999 when I found out that, in fact, it was the United States, 
hand in hand with the pharmaceutical companies, going to the WTO and 
telling South Africa it could not save its own citizens, that it 
continued to do that in Thailand, and that it continued to do that in 
Brazil. How shocking it would be for us if the tables were turned. 
Intellectual property rights here, the rights of human beings to live 
down here. I brought this to the attention of the President of the 
United States along with many of my colleagues here. He created an 
executive order that said we are not going to do that anymore. And this 
President, to his credit, is continuing that executive order.
  So what is the problem? Let us put that into the law for all 
Americans to see, that we say that we will not use the rights, the 
intellectual rights of the pharmaceutical companies to deprive human 
beings of their right to live and to receive the drugs when their 
country makes the effort to provide them.
  I think it is stunning to me that anyone, as a previous speaker did, 
would come to this floor in defense of the practice of the 
pharmaceutical companies to say, we want to make our profit off of 
those people who could not possibly afford the $10,000 for those drugs. 
We are going to protect our profits and allow people in developing 
nations to die. This country is so much more compassionate than that. 
They want us, in the face of this crisis, which supersedes all of the 
plagues in history and combined deaths of all the wars, to take action 
to do everything we can to save lives around the globe. That is the 
only intention of this amendment. I urge its support.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me just say as I sit here listening to this debate, I am very 
troubled by how it has degenerated into a debate about intellectual 
property rights as compared to saving lives. It is really an unfair 
debate, because there is no comparison in terms of what we are talking 
about. Intellectual property rights, our trade policies, many of them 
were developed and set into stone way before people were dying from HIV 
and AIDS. So we should not even be making that comparison tonight. We 
are talking about the basic values of our country, of people in our 
country who care about people who are dying. We are not really talking 
about property rights.
  I think after tonight's debate, this House needs to go back to the 
drawing board and really reassess our trade policies and how we 
instruct our trade representatives. And, yes, I have talked with 
Secretary of State Colin Powell twice. I have talked with our Trade 
Representative. I was a delegate to the United Nations at the U.N. 
special session on AIDS. The whole world is looking at this House of 
Representatives to stop what we are doing in terms of our trade 
policies and to say, yes, we want these countries to begin to be 
developing their own generic drugs so that they can save the lives of 
millions and millions of their citizens.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Obviously the debate has been held, and we know where people stand. 
Of course I am shattered by what is happening on this floor. It is 
inconceivable that we could have the opportunity here this evening in 
our public policymaking to literally direct our United States Trade 
Representative in the way that they handle this issue and not allow 
them to take it before the WTO to prevent countries from producing 
generic drugs to save lives.
  It is a contradiction because we are debating faith-based 
initiatives. We are debating whether or not we are going to allow the 
religious community and the church community to help save lives and to 
help poor people, all of that. It is a contradiction, Mr. Chairman. As 
I listen to this debate this evening, I am shattered because for even 
the best of us, we allow ourselves to be undermined and to be 
mismanaged by outside interests. May God have mercy on all of our 
souls. This is a tragedy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California has got 
the most noble of intent in this particular legislation. I have no 
doubt. But I do not think, not that I do not think, I know, that in 
this particular case, it is not just about intellectual property 
rights. It is not just about the pharmaceuticals. Our point is, is that 
pharmaceuticals in almost every one of our districts. They go out and 
they try to survive producing new medicines.

                              {time}  1945

  FDA goes through and takes sometimes years to get the okay, and many 
of these companies actually go out of business; they do not survive. 
But a few of them have been fortunate enough to get through. And then 
our own laws,

[[Page H4186]]

many times the patent runs out just about the time that they get their 
new drug, new wonder drug okayed; and they have just a short time to 
recoup any loss, or even make a profit, or even keep from going out of 
business.
  If we just give these medicines away, if we violate those 
intellectual property rights, we force them to stop producing new 
medicines for the future. It is not about profit. It is about the fact 
that those new medicines, which the previous gentleman spoke very 
eloquently about, would not be produced, not only now, but in the 
future.
  We stand on the edge. This is going to be the decade, I really 
believe, and I am on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education, from stem cell research to the genome program 
to new research, we stand on the edge of biomedical research and new 
medicines. If we shut down the companies that are discovering these 
very medicines, then not just the people that are infected with HIV, 
and I think it is terrible about the number of people, and the 
gentlewoman is exactly right, there are entire civilizations that are 
dying, and there are children that do not have homes because their 
parents are dying of HIV, or even it has been transmitted to them at 
birth. So it is not a question about not caring; it is a question of 
caring not only now, but for the future.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we were just in a debate back here about how we license 
so many products and the power that we have, and we were just 
discussing that in relationship to this amendment and what tremendous 
accomplishments could be made with this simple step that we take here 
this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say something: we sit back and we watch young 
people protest against the WTO. When they were up in Seattle, many 
people were just appalled at the fact that they staged the kind of 
protests that they did; and many people did not understand it, because 
they did not understand the WTO and the powers of the WTO. They did not 
understand that we have created this monstrous organization that is 
very much influenced by the multinational corporations of the world, 
many times overriding the will of elected bodies, legislatures, 
parliaments, and congresses.
  The young people get it. They understand something is not right. And 
that something is demonstrated here tonight. That something that they 
rally and they protest about is the fact that there is an organization 
that has the power to rule in favor of multinational corporations, to 
protect their patents, even when, even when these countries, who need 
the medicines, could produce their own. But the rules of this game say 
that, no, you cannot do it, because the multinational corporations do 
not like it. You are going to interfere with their ability to make a 
profit. They do not want to give the power to a country to be able to 
take care of its own with cheap drugs.
  The young people are demonstrating, because they know that these 
policies are influenced, developed, in the back room. We do not even 
know who is sitting on these panels at the WTO. Most of the Members of 
Congress do not pay a lot of attention to the World Trade Organization. 
Most of the Members of Congress are not in the business of directing 
our United States Trade Representative.
  But I want to say what we do here this evening helps to define all of 
that. It helps the world to understand where we stand when it gets down 
to the people versus the multinationals, and whether or not we are 
going to use our power on behalf of people, just little people, just 
poor people, just dying people, or whether, in the final analysis, we 
do not have the will or the guts to stand up to multinational 
corporations who say ``protect us.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House Floor tonight in 
strong support for more action by developed countries and more 
leadership from the United States in fighting the AIDS epidemic, 
especially in developing countries. It is important that in addition to 
increased U.S. investment, we encourage creativity and investment from 
NGOs and the private sector to combat the AIDS crisis. While I support 
the positive intent of this amendment, the language included is much 
too broad. I fear this amendment could have unintended consequences and 
will vote against it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waters-
Kucinich amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations for 
fiscal year 2002. The Waters-Kucinich amendment would restore the 
ability of developing countries to pass laws for the purpose of making 
HIV/AIDS drugs available to their citizens. The Waters-Kucinich 
amendment would prohibit future WTO complaints, thereby giving 
developing countries the flexibility to provide cost effective 
treatment for people with HIV/AIDS. In the 35 years that I have worked 
in this wonderful House, I must say this is one of the most important 
amendments ever offered on the floor of this House!
  Mr. Chairman, Dr. Peter Piot, Director of UNAIDS, has stated time and 
time again than 95% of the African people who are infected with HIV/
AIDS can not afford AIDS anti-retroviral drugs. This means that if 
current WTO policies are not changed, then the 25 million people in 
Africa who are now infected with HIV/AIDS will receive an ``unnecessary 
death sentence'' due to the sole fact that African countries simply 
cannot afford the price of anti-retroviral drugs. Death by AIDS is not, 
and should not be a partisan issue; this is about something much 
deeper, more profound, and more spiritual than the current debate we 
are having tonight. This is about whether or not there will be 40 
million orphans in Africa in the year 2015 because the African people 
can not afford the obscene prices of pharmaceutical AIDS drugs.
  African countries should be allowed to take care of their own health 
problems. In Brazil, government labs have manufactured five generic 
AIDS medications since the mid 1990's under the national emergency 
provisions of the compulsory licensing system of the WTO. They 
distribute these medicines without charge. Should not Africa also be 
able to create their own generic AIDS drugs?
  6,000 people die in sub-Sahran Africa each day of HIV/AIDS. How many 
more African children, mothers, and fathers must die from this deadly 
disease before we open up our eyes and our hearts to the pain and 
suffering of our brothers and sisters in Africa. I believe, as do my 
colleagues who support this amendment, that intellectual property 
rights can not, and must not, be placed above the right for all human 
beings, to live a full and productive life.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
Waters-Kucinich Amendment.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Waters' 
and Representative Kucinich's amendment to restore the ability of 
developing countries to make HIV/AIDS drugs available to their 
citizens. While I understand the importance of the intellectual 
property rights of the companies that create these vital drugs, my 
conscience compels me to support this amendment. I must support this 
amendment out of a sense of morality and concern for my fellow mankind 
in Africa and other developing countries.
  HIV/AIDS is ravaging developing countries and wiping out a whole 
generation of men and women. More than 25 million Africans are now 
living with HIV and last year alone, 2.4 million Africans died from the 
disease. Sub-Saharan African women are now the fastest-growing HIV-
positive population.
  The loss of mothers and fathers in Sub-Saharan Africa has resulted in 
a new social epidemic: parentless children. Two-thirds of 500,000 
orphaned children in South Africa lost parents to HIV/AIDS, and over 
30% of the children born to HIV+women will develop pediatric AIDS. I 
have witnessed the orphanages overflowing with children who have lost 
parents to this disease and it is astonishing.
  I commend the pharmaceutical companies who have made efforts to 
provide HIV/AIDS medications available to Sub-Saharan Africa. Also, I 
thank the 39 pharmaceutical companies for placing humanitarian concerns 
over profits by dropping their suit against the South African HIV/AIDS 
law earlier this year.
  However, if we do not act now whole cultures may perish before our 
very eyes. If we do nothing, our tacit acceptance of the HIV/AIDS 
crisis in Africa and other developing countries is unforgivable. We 
must pass this amendment and allow developing countries the flexibility 
they need to provide cost-effective treatment for people with HIV/AIDS. 
If for no other reason, we should pass this amendment for the children 
whose parents these drugs can keep alive.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waters 
Amendment.
  We are all concerned about the AIDS epidemic in Africa and we should 
do more. President Bush and Secretary Powell have proposed a broad new 
initiative to help African countries address this horrible epidemic and 
Chairman Hyde is working on that $1 billion initiative. And as a Member 
of the Appropriations Committee, we just completed work on a Foreign 
Operations bill that doubles the U.S. contribution to fight global 
AIDS.

[[Page H4187]]

  But in our efforts to help the world community address the spread of 
HIV and AIDS, we should not sacrifice the rightful ownership and 
control of American innovations and products that help keep men, women 
and children healthy both at home and overseas.
  In point of fact, because we do protect intellectual property rights, 
our country's scientists and companies have led the way in developing 
the very AIDS treatments that we are trying to get to the people of 
Africa. It is also the very same system of intellectual property 
protection that will lead to the next generation of much needed AIDS 
treatments.
  Without protecting new innovations and products, where will the next 
and better treatments for AIDS and so may other diseases come from?
  We should do more to help fights AIDS around the globe. We will do 
more to help fight AIDS around the globe. This amendment is simply not 
the remedy for addressing the very real needs of people suffering from 
AIDS around the globe.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) will be postponed.


                   Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Wu

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

       Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Wu:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to process an application under the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, or any other immigration law, submitted by 
     or on behalf of an alien who has been directly or indirectly 
     involved in the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners 
     who did not consent to such harvesting.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I claim the 
time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the chairman for his 
leadership in human rights issues around the world and particularly in 
China. I believe that my amendment addresses a human rights issue of 
profound importance. The practice of the illegal harvesting and sale of 
human organs from executed prisoners is a gross, gross violation of 
human rights. Under even Chinese law, this practice is illegal. Under 
our laws, we have very strong protections about what prisoners can do 
with their donated organs.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I both 
share concerns about the Chinese Government's poor human rights 
practices. That illegal organ harvesting from prisoners is not just 
profoundly objectionable, it strikes at the very heart of what it means 
to be a human being.
  I hope that this House will stand with me. We need to do everything 
we can to stop this practice. At a minimum, at a minimum, we need to 
bar the entry of people who have participated in this practice from 
entering into the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) 
for this amendment. We have been trying to be faithful on amendments 
that were out of order to object, just like we did on the last one. 
However, I will do everything I can to see that this is in the final 
bill.
  Here is a statement that was presented at a hearing before the 
Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights on June 27 by 
Wang Guoqi, a physician from the People's Republic of China. Mr. Wang 
was a skin and burn specialist at the Paramilitary Police General 
Brigade Hospital. He writes that his work ``required me to remove skin 
and corneas from the corpses of over 100 executed prisoners, and, on a 
couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched executions.'' In 
very graphic examples, Mr. Wang describes how he has harvested the skin 
off of a man who was still living and breathing.
  This is one of the reasons why I am opposed to granting MFN or PNTR 
to the Chinese Government. The gentleman is exactly right, and we will 
do everything we can to see that his amendment in any way we possibly 
can is carried in the bill.
  The reason we are objecting on a point of order is in fairness to the 
others, the gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from Indiana and 
others, to maintain the consistency. But we will do everything we can. 
I think it is a good amendment, what the gentleman is trying to do.
  I would also like to have an opportunity to have INS and Justice and 
State maybe come up, or we can meet in the gentleman's office, whereby 
we can sit down to see how we can fashion something to see that the 
gentleman's purposes and goals of what he wants to do are accomplished.
  I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I thank him for bringing this very important issue to the attention 
of the Congress.
  I appreciate the work that is behind the gentleman's effort to stop 
the unlawful organ transplant without consent in China. I say 
``unlawful,'' because even under Chinese law, as the gentleman pointed 
out, this practice is not allowed.
  I thank the distinguished chairman for his very thoughtful remarks as 
well, and I have every confidence that he will be effective in what he 
is trying to do here.
  I just want to read from the Year 2000 State Department Human Rights 
Report: ``In recent years, credible reports have alleged that organs 
from some executed prisoners were removed, sold, and transplanted. 
Officials have confirmed that executed prisoners are among the sources 
of organs for transplants but maintain the consent is required from 
prisoners or their relatives before the organs are removed.'' Indeed, 
that would be under the law of China, if the prisoners' body is not 
claimed, with the consent of the prisoner, or with the prior consent of 
the prisoner's family.
  But the fact is, as our own Deputy Secretary for Democracy, Secretary 
Parmly, has stated before Congress, ``Bodies are also routinely 
cremated immediately after a sentence is carried out, making it 
impossible even for those families who are able to claim a family 
member's remains to determine whether or not the body has been used for 
medical purposes.''
  Then further to that point, execution is often not announced in 
advance until within hours of the execution. With China's vast 
geography, such short notices often make it impossible for families to 
travel to claim the body on such short notice.
  This is a very smart amendment. This is a very smart amendment 
because so many of the people doing these organ transplants get their 
training under good intentions in the United States, but then go use it 
in China for a bad reason. This is a very targeted way to address the 
problem. I commend the gentleman for his very smart, targeted, focused 
amendment, and hope the distinguished chairman will make it part of the 
bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Subcommittee 
on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, held a 
hearing a few weeks ago on the China's terrible practice of harvesting 
organs of executed prisoners. The horrific stories relayed by our 
witnesses motivated me

[[Page H4188]]

to file several pieces of legislation cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and which does precisely this.
  It seeks to ensure the U.S. does not become an accomplice to the 
promulgation of such a deplorable practice.
  One of these bills has as one of its provisions the prohibition of 
visas to be awarded to those who engage in the harvesting, 
transplantation, and trafficking in harvested organs from executed 
prisoners.
  China's Communist regime has a lucrative industry in the field of 
organ transplantation, which not only yields great financial rewards, 
but it provides the regime with a very powerful tool to coerce and 
intimidate the population into submission. It executes more prisoners 
each year than all of the other countries combined, with experts such 
as Amnesty International estimating that the numbers could reach 1,000 
executions per year in each city.
  Evidence further indicates that 90 percent of all transplants 
performed in China use organs taken from executed prisoners. The 
payment for these organs and transplants are in the tens of thousands, 
and increasing as the demand continues to grow. Government sanctioning 
of organ harvesting from prisoners began in 1979, but the evil nature 
of this practice does not stop there.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Congress must not 
allow this horrific situation to go unchallenged.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I would like to 
congratulate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), my colleague.
  What we are doing here today and, hopefully, what we will be 
permitted to do is to send a message to those people who are committing 
criminal acts against the people of China, saying they will be held 
accountable. Doctors who are participating in crimes against humanity, 
which the harvesting of organs is all about, they will be held 
accountable. They will not be treated like any other individual or any 
other doctor from around the world who wants to come to the United 
States.
  Tomorrow, we will debate and discuss permanent Normal Trade Relations 
with China. China is a criminal country as well at this time. Their 
government should not be treated as we treat any other friendly and 
democratic government. They should be held accountable. That is a 
government that is run by gangsters and criminals. They should be held 
accountable. We should not give them that trade status. Individuals in 
China who are part of that regime and take part in these criminals acts 
also should be held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, my hat is off to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for 
making sure we stand up for this moral position.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon asked me 
earlier in the day if I would support this, and I said yes. I do not 
think everybody in China is evil, but I do think there are evil people 
in the government, and I think there are atrocities going on which the 
gentleman is trying to get to, all the way from Germany with the 
experiments that went on there to the even alleged nonprisoners being 
executed and killed for international marketing.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, 
and I thank him for offering it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I just want to close by saying that it is absolutely imperative that 
we set universal standards for human conduct. What we are seeking to 
reach through this amendment is illegal under Chinese law. It is 
illegal under American law. It is already prohibited to permit 
individuals like this from entering the United States by current 
exclusion standards under U.S. immigration law. But at core what this 
amendment strikes at is a practice which strikes at what it means to be 
a human being.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
submit the testimony that was given before the subcommittee under the 
jurisdiction of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), which 
verifies everything that the gentleman said.

Testimony of Wang Guoqi, Former Doctor at a Chinese People's Liberation 
                             Army Hospital

       My name is Wang Guoqi and I am a 38-year-old physician from 
     the People's Republic of China. In 1981, after standard 
     childhood schooling and graduation, I joined the People's 
     Liberation Army. By 1984, I was studying medicine at the 
     Paramilitary Police Paramedical School. I received advanced 
     degrees in Surgery and Human Tissue Studies, and consequently 
     became a specialist in the burn victims unit at the 
     Paramilitary Police Tianjin General Brigade Hospital in 
     Tianjin. My work required me to remove skin and corneas from 
     the corpses of over one hundred executed prisoners, and, on a 
     couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched 
     executions. It is with deep regret and remorse for my actions 
     that I stand here today testifying against the practices of 
     organ and tissue sales from death row prisoners.
       My involvement in harvesting the skin from prisoners began 
     while performing research on cadavers at the Beijing People's 
     Liberation Army Surgeons Advanced Studies School, in 
     Beijing's 304th Hospital. This hospital is directly 
     subordinate to the PLA, and so connections between doctors 
     and officers were very close. In order to secure a corpse 
     from the execution grounds, security officers and court units 
     were given ``red envelopes'' with cash amounting to anywhere 
     between 200-500 RMB per corpse. Then, after execution, the 
     body would be rushed to the autopsy room rather than the 
     crematorium, and we would extract skin, kidneys, livers, 
     bones, and corneas for research and experimental purposes. I 
     learned the process of preserving human skin and tissue for 
     burn victims, and skin was subsequently sold to needy burn 
     victims for 10 RMB per square centimeter.
       After completing my studies in Beijing, and returning to 
     Tianjin's Paramilitary Police General Brigade Hospital, I 
     assisted hospital directors Liu Lingfeng and Song Heping in 
     acquiring the necessary equipment to build China's first skin 
     and tissue storehouse. Soon afterward, I established close 
     ties with Section Chief Xing, a criminal investigator of the 
     Tianjin Higher People's Court.
       Acquiring skin from executed prisoners usually took place 
     around major holidays or during the government's Strike Hard 
     campaigns, when prisoners would be executed in groups. 
     Section Chief Xing would notify us of upcoming executions. We 
     would put an order in for the number of corpses we'd like to 
     dissect, and I would give him 300 RMB per cadaver. The 
     money exchange took place at the Higher People's Court, 
     and no receipts or evidence of the transaction would be 
     exchanged.
       Once notified of an execution, our section would prepare 
     all necessary equipment and arrive at the Beicang Crematorium 
     in plain clothes with all official license plates on our 
     vehicles replaced with civilian ones. This was done on orders 
     of the criminal investigation section. Before removing the 
     skin, we would cut off the ropes that bound the criminals' 
     hands and remove their clothing. Each criminal had 
     identification papers in his or her pocket that detailed the 
     executes name, age, profession, work unit, address, and 
     crime. Nowhere on these papers was there any mention of 
     voluntary organ donation, and clearly the prisoners did not 
     know how their bodies would be used after death.
       We had to work quickly in the crematorium, and 10-20 
     minutes were generally enough to remove all skin from a 
     corpse. Whatever remained was passed over to the crematorium 
     workers. Between five and eight times a year, the hospital 
     would send a number of teams to execution sites to harvest 
     skin. Each team could process up to four corpses, and they 
     would take as much as was demanded by both our hospital and 
     fraternal hospitals. Because this system allowed us to treat 
     so many burn victims, our department became the most 
     reputable and profitable department in Tianjin.
       Huge profits prompted our hospital to urge other 
     departments to design similar programs. The urology 
     department thus began its program of kidney transplant 
     surgeries. The complexity of the surgery called for a price 
     of $120-150,000 RMB per kidney.
       With such high prices, primarily wealthy or high-ranking 
     people were able to buy kidneys. If they had the money, the 
     first step would be to find a donor-recipient match. In the 
     first case of kidney transplantation in August, 1990, I 
     accompanied the urology surgeon to the higher court and 
     prison to collect blood samples from four death-row 
     prisoners. The policeman escorting us told the prisoners that 
     we were there to check their health conditions; therefore, 
     the prisoners did not know the purpose for their blood 
     samples or that their organs might be up for sale. Out of the 
     four samplings, one basic and sub-group blood match was found 
     for the recipient, and the prisoner's kidneys were deemed fit 
     for transplantation.
       Once a donor was confirmed, our hospital held a joint 
     meeting with the urology department, burn surgery department, 
     and operating room personnel. We scheduled tentative plans to 
     prepare the recipient for the coming kidney and discussed 
     concrete issues of transportation and personnel. Two days

[[Page H4189]]

     before execution, we received final confirmation from the 
     higher court, and on the day of the execution, we arrived at 
     the execution site in plain clothes. In the morning, the 
     donating prisoner had received a heparin shot to prevent 
     blood clotting and ease the organ extraction process. When 
     all military personnel and condemned prisoners would arrive 
     at the site, the organ-donating prisoner was brought forth 
     for the first execution.
       At the execution site, a colleague, Xing Tongyi, and I were 
     responsible for carrying the stretcher. Once the hand-cuffed 
     and leg-ironed prisoner had been shot, a bailiff removed the 
     leg irons. Xing Tongyi and I had 15 seconds to bring the 
     executee to the waiting ambulance. Inside the ambulance, the 
     best urologist surgeons removed both kidneys, and rushed back 
     to the waiting recipient at the hospital. Meanwhile, our burn 
     surgery department waited for the execution of the following 
     three prisoners and followed their corpses to the crematorium 
     where we removed skin in a small room next to the furnaces. 
     Since our director had business ties with the Tianjin 
     Ophthalmologic Hospital and Beijing's 304th Hospital, he 
     instructed us to extract the executee's corneas as well.
       Although I performed this procedure nearly a hundred times 
     in the following years, it was an incident in October 1995 
     that has tortured my conscience to no end. We were sent to 
     Hebei Province to extract kidneys and skin. We arrived one 
     day before the execution of a man sentenced to death for 
     robbery and the murder of a would-be witness. Before 
     execution, I administered a shot of heparin to prevent blood 
     clotting to the prisoner. A nearby policeman told him it was 
     a tranquilizer to prevent unnecessary suffering during the 
     execution. The criminal responded by giving thanks to the 
     government.
       At the site, the execution commander gave the order, 
     ``Go!,'' and the prisoner was shot to the ground. Either 
     because the executioner was nervous, aimed poorly, or 
     intentionally misfired to keep the organs intact, the 
     prisoner had not yet died, but instead lay convulsing on the 
     ground. We were ordered to take him to the ambulance anyway 
     where urologists Wang Zhifu, Zhao Qingling and Liu Oiyou 
     extracted his kidneys quickly and precisely. When they 
     finished, the prisoner was still breathing and his heart 
     continued to beat. The execution commander asked if they 
     might fire a second shot to finish him off, to which the 
     country court staff replied, ``Save that shot. With both 
     kidneys out, there is no way he can survive.'' The urologists 
     rushed back to the hospital with the kidneys, the county 
     staff and executioner left the scene, and eventually the 
     paramilitary policemen disappeared as well. We burn surgeons 
     remained inside the ambulance to harvest the skin. We could 
     hear people outside the ambulance, and fearing it was the 
     victim's family who might force their way inside, we left our 
     job half-done, and the half-dead corpse was thrown in a 
     plastic bag onto the flatbed of the crematorium truck. As we 
     left in the ambulance, we were pelted by stones from behind.
       After this incident, I have had horrible, reoccurring 
     nightmares. I have participated in a practice that serves the 
     regime's political and economic goals far more than it 
     benefits the patients. I have worked at execution sites over 
     a dozen times, and have taken the skin from over one hundred 
     prisoners in crematoriums. Whatever impact I have made in the 
     lives of burn victims and transplant patients does not excuse 
     the unethical and immoral manner of extracting organs.
       I resolved to no longer participate in the organ business, 
     and my wife supported my decision. I submitted a written 
     report requesting reassignment to another job. This request 
     was flatly denied on the grounds that no other job matched my 
     skills. I began to refuse to take part in outings to 
     execution sites and crematoriums, to which the hospital 
     responded by blaming and criticizing me for my refusals. I 
     was forced to submit a pledge that I would never expose their 
     practices of procuring organs and the process by which the 
     organs and skin were preserved and sold for huge profits. 
     They threatened me with severe consequences, and began to 
     train my replacement. Until the day I left China in the 
     spring of 2000, they were still harvesting organs from 
     execution sites.
       I hereby expose all these terrible things to the light in 
     the hope that this will help to put an end to this evil 
     practice.

  Mr. Chairman, having said that, I think it is a good amendment and, 
hopefully, we can take it and fashion it and shape it so that when this 
final bill comes out it is in there, and I look forward to the meeting 
with INS to see how we can work this out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WOLF. I insist on my point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriations bill and, therefore, it violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the chairman on 
this issue. I do not believe that this amendment is subject to a point 
of order.
  Under current immigration law, 8 U.S.C. 1182, also known as section 
212, under section 212(3)(b)(i)(I), this group of people is already 
prohibited from entering the United States as those terms are defined 
under section 212(3)(b)(ii)(IV).
  Again, I believe that this amendment is not subject to a point of 
order. The provisions of section 212 are not permissive, they are 
mandatory. I have with me here a form, an immigration form, which every 
person entering the United States must fill out; and here, in this 
section, is a series of check boxes mandated by section 212.
  One cannot skip that section. One cannot fill out some of the 
sections and not others. One must fill out the entire section, and that 
section is mandated by section 212. Under current law, the INS must, 
must make determinations as to whether this category of people are 
excludable; and, therefore, I think that the point of order fails.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon proposes to change 
existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of Rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation might refrain from explicitly assigning 
new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires 
them to make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of 
them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is 
subject to a point of order under clause 2(c) of Rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provisions are already required by law.
  The Chair finds that the limitation proposed in the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) does more than merely decline to 
fund the processing of applications under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. Rather, it seeks to restrict funding for such 
processing only when the applicant has been involved with the 
harvesting of organs directly or indirectly.
  Compliance with the amendment would require the relevant Federal 
officials receiving funds in this act to make an investigation into 
whether the individuals filing the application have been involved in 
such harvesting, directly or indirectly.
  The proponent of this amendment has not carried the burden of proving 
that the relevant Federal officials are presently charged with making 
this investigation in every instance. The section cited by the 
gentleman does not require this specific determination.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon proposes to change existing law.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 
for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, if this practice were going on in Canada, we 
would have stopped it long ago. If this practice were going on with 
people that we thought were very much like us, I think we would have 
stopped it cold long, long ago.
  I look very much like the folks whose organs are being harvested. If 
you cut me, will I not bleed? If you kill my children, will my heart 
not cry out in sorrow? And if you deny me justice, will my soul not cry 
out for justice?
  In this instance, in this instance, we live to fight another day; and 
I look forward to working with the chairman of this subcommittee to 
make this law this year. I thank my colleagues for the indulgence of 
the House.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4190]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States 
     of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, 
     Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing State laws 
     authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is a simple limitation that would prevent the Justice 
Department from using any of the funds appropriated to it by this bill 
to interfere with the implementation of State medical marijuana laws.
  During the past 5 years, nine States, Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, have 
passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal 
purposes. With the exception of Hawaii, all of these laws were adopted 
by citizen referenda. The average vote in these States was in excess of 
60 percent in favor.
  These laws are not free-for-alls that open the door to wholesale 
legalization, as critics claim. Rather, in every case, they specify in 
great detail the illnesses for which patients may use medical 
marijuana, the amounts that patients may possess, and the conditions 
under which it can be grown and obtained. Most establish a State 
registry and an I.D. card for patients.
  Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic with no 
permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical 
trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating 
symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other 
serious medical conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the 
National Academy of Sciences has recommending smoking marijuana for 
certain medical uses. The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of 
Family Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, the 
American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente and the New 
England Journal of Medicine have all endorsed supervised access to 
medical marijuana.
  Internationally, the Canadian government has adopted regulations that 
go into effect at the end of this month for the use of medical 
marijuana in that country. In addition, the British Medical 
Association, the French Ministry of Health, the Israeli Health Ministry 
and the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis have all recommended 
the medical use of marijuana.
  Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in 
its opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in these nine States. 
After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the Clinton 
Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and distributors 
in an attempt to shut down the new law. Federal laws upheld the right 
of doctors to talk to their patients about medical marijuana.
  The Supreme Court, however, recently ruled that it is a violation of 
Federal law to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. Despite State 
laws that protect patients and cannabis clubs from State prosecution, 
the United States Supreme Court cleared the way for the Federal 
Government to enforce Federal laws against these individuals.
  Attorney General Ashcroft has not indicated whether he will instruct 
the local U.S. Attorneys to enforce this decision which makes passage 
of this amendment critical to the States that have enacted medical 
marijuana laws. This amendment would prevent the Justice Department 
from arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging doctors, 
patients and distributors in those States from acting in compliance 
with their own State laws.
  This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use. It 
does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive schedule of 
narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical marijuana 
law. It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing drug laws 
against drug kingpins, narcotraffickers, street dealers, habitual 
criminals, addicts, recreational users, or anyone other than people who 
comply with medical marijuana laws in those nine States.
  By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be 
reaffirming the power of citizen democracy and State and local 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume, and I am going to just briefly make 
some comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Department 
of Justice is very much opposed to the amendment.
  On May 14, 2001, a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 
that marijuana's designation as a controlled substance reaffirmed that 
marijuana has no medical benefits under Federal law. In 1998, the 
Congress emphasized its opposition to the recently enacted State 
marijuana laws and statutory provisions entitled ``Not Legalizing 
Marijuana for Medicinal Use'' and ``Rejection of Legalization of 
Drugs.'' In these provisions, Congress reiterated that drugs classified 
as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, as is marijuana, have a high 
potential for abuse, lack any currently accepted use as a medical 
treatment, or are unsafe, even under medical supervision.

                              {time}  2015

  The gentleman's amendment would restrict the Department of Justice, 
in particular DEA, from using the funds to investigate people who use 
marijuana under the guise of medical purposes. I believe that would be 
the wrong signal to send. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and commend him for his courage in bringing this amendment to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment to prevent 
Federal interference with State laws that allow the use of marijuana 
for medicinal purposes, medicinal purposes only.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is a very difficult issue for Members to 
understand, and that is why I commended the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) for his courage. Over the past 2 decades in my city of 
San Francisco, we have lost nearly 19,000 people to AIDS, about 10,000 
people a decade. I have seen the suffering that accompanies the 
advanced stages of this disease far too many times. I could name the 
names of people that I have ministered the needs of in their dying 
days.
  Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include alleviation of some of the 
most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and 
nausea. These benefits also improve the quality of life for patients 
with cancer, with MS, and other severe medical conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of medical marijuana argue there are other 
ways to ingest the active ingredient of marijuana, including the use of 
synthetic THC. However, we know that the drug containing THC does not 
work for all people. There is no logic in the assertion that a very ill 
person should be sent to jail for using the smokeable form of a drug 
whose active ingredient is currently licensed for oral use.
  Mr. Chairman, 56 percent of the voters in my home State of California 
passed an initiative authorizing seriously ill patients to take 
marijuana upon the recommendation of a licensed physician. Proposition 
215 has provided thousands of Californians suffering from debilitating 
diseases safe and legal access to a drug that makes life a little more 
bearable.
  As the California Medical Association stated when expressing its 
support for medical marijuana, and I quote, ``Statement of the 
California Medical Association: Patients should not suffer 
unnecessarily when other options fail.''
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) would 
prevent the Justice Department from

[[Page H4191]]

 using any funds to interfere with the rights of California and the 
eight other States that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal 
purposes, for medicinal purposes only, to alleviate the suffering of 
their citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, to effectively fight the war on drug abuse, we must get 
our priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making 
criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step 
toward controlling America's drug problem. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let us point out that 
were this amendment to become law, we would raise the nullification 
question. I believe this has been decided in United States history. The 
Supreme Court has clearly decided that, in fact, Federal law preempts 
State law in matters that are of national concern.
  I think we need to understand that in the South Carolina example we 
reject nullification, and that is, in fact, what a number of States are 
attempting to do with Federal law by circumventing it through largely 
highly funded efforts by George Soros and his allies who have distorted 
the record, distorted the approach, and resulted in people preying on 
people's legitimate concerns in how to deal in these very tough minimal 
number of cases where, in fact, marinol did not suffice to alleviate 
the vomiting. That is really what we are debating, a very limited 
number of cases.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from several of us on 
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     Attorney General, Washington, DC.
       Dear General Ashcroft: As members of the Subcommittee on 
     Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, we write 
     to commend you on the outstanding performance of the Justice 
     Department in obtaining a decisive Supreme Court ruling in 
     the Oakland Cannabis case. We urge you to now move swiftly to 
     give effect to that ruling throughout the United States with 
     respect to ``medical marijuana'' provisions contrary to the 
     Court's unanimous decision.
       As you know, the Court's determined that the express 
     congressional determination in the Controlled Substances Act 
     (``CSA'') that marijuana and other Schedule I drugs have ``no 
     currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United 
     States'' (21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b)(1)(B)) is clear and 
     controlling law. Accordingly, the CSA's prohibitions against 
     manufacturing, distribution, and possession with intent to 
     distribute controlled substances such as marijuana (21 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 844(a)), are the law of the land across the United 
     States under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
       As President Bush recently made clear, ``we emphatically 
     disagree with those who favor drug legalization.'' Yet eight 
     states and the District of Columbia purport to permit the use 
     of marijuana in a way wholly contrary to the explicit reading 
     of the Controlled Substances Act explained by the Supreme 
     Court. The fringe drug legalization movement hopes this will 
     send a message to our children and society that drug use is 
     tolerable. Marijuana use is not tolerable under any 
     circumstances.
       Accordingly, we are asking you to direct the Department of 
     Justice to immediately seek injunctive relief in federal 
     courts in each of these states similar to the order in 
     California which was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court 
     in Oakland Cannabis. Since state ``medical marijuana'' 
     initiatives which purport to allow the manufacture, 
     distribution or individual possession of marijuana contrary 
     to the Controlled Substances Act are clearly unconstitutional 
     under the Supremacy Clause, we believe that injunctive relief 
     prohibiting such manufacturing, distribution and individual 
     possession is well warranted as a matter of law. This action 
     would also decisively resolve significant uncertainties with 
     respect to marijuana which have greatly hampered federal, 
     state and local law enforcement activities in each of these 
     areas and send a critical anti-drug message to our nation.
       We appreciate the leadership of President Bush and you in 
     this important area and look forward to continuing to work 
     with you to protect our families from illegal drugs.
           Sincerely,
     Mark E. Souder,
                                                         Chairman.
     Bob Barr,
                                               Member of Congress.
     Doug Ose,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Reform subcommittee that I 
chair, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 
Resources actually held a hearing on this subject, medical marijuana, 
Federal drug law, and the Constitution's supremacy clause that is 
available for people who want to look at the constitutional question.
  I include for the Record the brief to the United States Supreme Court 
that resulted in the national unanimous decision that State law does 
not reign supreme to Federal law, and two articles from Mendocino, 
where we have actually seen the confrontation of the abuse of the 
California law.
  The documents referred to are as follows:

                [From the Press Democrat, March 7, 2001]

          Raids Reveal Fake Homes Filled With Marijuana Farms


   120 local, state, federal agents target 11 growing operations in 
                      humboldt, mendocino counties

                           (By Mike Geniella)

       UKIAH--About 120 drug agents early Tuesday fanned across 
     the rugged backwoods of Mendocino and Humboldt counties, 
     raiding 11 sophisticated, indoor marijuana growing 
     operations, including some built to look like houses.
       Authorities said there were no interior walls in the ``fake 
     homes,'' nor did the structures have such things as kitchens 
     or bathrooms. Instead, the buildings contained thousands of 
     marijuana plants flourishing under lights powered by diesel 
     generators.
       ``Even though they look like houses, these are commercial 
     buildings built specifically for growing marijuana indoors,'' 
     said Gilbert Bruce, special agent in charge of the federal 
     Drug Enforcement Agency's San Francisco office.
       At each site, agents found high-tech security systems, 
     along with guns and ammunition, said Bruce, who oversaw 
     Tuesday's raids near the communities of Laytonville, Hunt 
     Ranch, Garberville and Redway.
       Mendocino County Sheriff's Capt. Kevin Broin accompanied 
     drug agents who drove up miles of rugged dirt roads to reach 
     the six pot-growing structures that were camouflaged to look 
     like houses.
       ``At first glance, they looked like any other rural home,'' 
     Broin said. ``A couple of them were two stories, and even had 
     wrap-around porches.''
       But Broin said closer inspection revealed that the 
     structures were never built with the intention of being 
     occupied.
       ``There was nothing to them on the inside. There were just 
     four walls and a lot of marijuana,'' he said.
       Bruce said the structures were designed to elude detection 
     by drug teams who often rely on aerial overflights to uncover 
     large-scale marijuana growing operations.
       ``We've seen places like this before but never so many 
     clustered in one region,'' he said.
       Armed with federal warrants, teams of local, state and 
     federal agents early Tuesday used two helicopters and a fleet 
     of 4-wheel-drive vehicles to reach the remote pot-growing 
     operations spread across sites in northern Mendocino and 
     southern Humboldt counties.
       The federal operation was dubbed ``Emerald Triangle'' in 
     recognition of Mendocino, Humboldt and neighboring Trinity 
     County having the dubious distinction of being the biggest 
     marijuana producers in the state.
       Targeted on Tuesday were at least three separate marijuana-
     growing sites responsible for ``operating multi-stage 
     marijuana production and distribution facilities in Northern 
     California,'' Bruce said.
       By mid-day, he said, agents had arrested three men, 
     uprooted more than 14,000 pot plants and seized $206,000 in 
     cash.
       He said the raids were the culmination of a two-year 
     investigation. He said a federal grand jury ultimately will 
     review results of the investigation and return criminal 
     indictments as necessary.
       ``We have the outline, but we're still not sure where the 
     investigation will finally lead us,'' he said.
       In this specific case, Mexican drug cartels are not 
     suspected of being in control, Bruce said. In recent years, 
     local authorities have been plagued by a rash of violent 
     incidents involving armed Mexican nationals hired to guard 
     illicit pot gardens on the North Coast.
       ``We believe the responsible people are all residents of 
     the U.S.,'' Bruce said.
       A multiagency task force including representatives of local 
     sheriff's departments, the state Bureau of Narcotics 
     Enforcement, CHP, DEA, FBI and Internal Revenue Service has 
     spent two years probing the suspected pot farms that were 
     raided Tuesday.
       Part of the investigation centers on suspected money 
     laundering and the purchase of large tracts of remote North 
     Coast land by unidentified individuals who subdivided the 
     property with the specific intent of creating commercial 
     indoor marijuana-growing sites.
       Mendocino County Sheriff Tony Craver and Humboldt County 
     Sheriff Dennis Lewis on Tuesday applauded the federal 
     intervention.
       ``This is the kind of sophisticated drug operation that we 
     can't properly investigate at the local level,'' Craver said.
       Lewis said Humboldt authorities are routinely encountering 
     more large-scale indoor marijuana growing operations, 
     although not on the scale announced Tuesday.

[[Page H4192]]

       He said Tuesday's raids uncovered information that led 
     teams to two additional indoor pot-growing sites in southern 
     Humboldt County.
       Two brothers who live in Redway were among those arrested 
     Tuesday on suspicion of having ties to the pot-growing 
     operations.
       Shane and Terry Miller had $200,000 in cash in their 
     possession at the time of their arrests Tuesday morning. 
     Another Redway man, Zachary Stone, also was taken into 
     custody at a separate residence. He had $6,000 in cash, Bruce 
     said.
       So far, the Millers and Stone face charges related to 
     weapons and possession of marijuana for sale. Bruce said 
     further arrests are expected.
                                  ____


                        [From Associated Press]

                           (By Don Thompson)

                   County Juggles Marijuana Policies


                  In Mendocino, it's citizens vs. DEA

       Ukiah--Here in the Emerald Triangle, where marijuana 
     sprouts like mushrooms from the forest floor, Mendocino 
     County's two top cops see themselves as a buffer between drug 
     agents and an often freewheeling citizenry.
       District Attorney Norman Vroman and Sheriff Tony Craver won 
     office two years ago with campaign pledges to set up one of 
     the nation's first medical marijuana licensing programs. 
     Their goal, they said, is to keep police from seizing legal 
     pot gardens and hassling legitimate growers who register 
     under a 4-year-old California law.
       Now both men are promising to enforce state and federal 
     drug laws, in part to keep outside drug agents from stepping 
     in after voters decided last fall to bar police from 
     targeting small-time marijuana growers.
       Measure G instructed county supervisors not to spend money 
     pursuing those growing fewer than 25 marijuana plants, and it 
     directed Vroman and Craver to make enforcement and 
     prosecution of small-time growers their lowest priority.
       No problem, they say. Neither the district attorney nor the 
     sheriff has enough staff or money to go after those they call 
     ``mom and pop growers.'' Not when drug cartels are importing 
     armed workers to tend and guard thousands of marijuana plants 
     hidden in national forests and other remote areas of the 
     region.
       ``Twenty-five plants is a hellacious amount of marijuana. 
     Some of the stuff they grow here, you can get 2 and 3 pounds 
     off a plant,'' Vroman said. However, he said, ``as a 
     practical matter, nobody in the county got prosecuted for 25 
     plants or 30 plants.''
       The only time arrests were made for small numbers of plants 
     was when police were called in for other reasons, for 
     instance on a domestic violence complaint, and saw the 
     marijuana, Vroman and Craver said.
       That policy will continue, and should stave off any 
     crackdown by outside drug agents in the wake of Measure G, 
     they said.
       ``We still will arrest people who shove it in our face,'' 
     Vroman said.
       I know damn well what you'd see if we made a flat refusal 
     to do it,'' Craver said. ``You'd see a lot of political 
     pressure, intervention, all kind of things going on here. No 
     doubt about that.''
       Craver and Vroman started their medical marijuana licensing 
     program two years ago.
       Since then, Craver's department has issued about 500 
     licenses to residents who produced a doctor's recommendation 
     that they use marijuana to treat an ailment, or to those who 
     grow the marijuana for them.
       ``We don't want to harass an honest citizen,'' Craver said. 
     ``A lot of these people really are not criminals. These are 
     people who really want to be law-abiding citizens. They have 
     a legal right to what they consider to be medicine.''
       The federal government takes strong issue with California's 
     medical marijuana law.
       The Drug Enforcement Administration doesn't target users 
     but will arrest anyone caught growing marijuana for profit or 
     the illegal drug market, spokeswoman Jocelyn Barnes said. And 
     claiming the marijuana is for medical use doesn't fly under 
     federal law, which holds that there are no bona fide health 
     benefits, she said.

  Mr. Chairman, one in particular that I have been briefed on in one of 
my visits to northern California is up in Humboldt County, where we 
had, as the DEA did their raid, signs posted throughout this complex 
that said ``This marijuana is for medicinal purposes.'' This raid, at 
first glance it looked like any other rural home. A couple of them were 
two stories and even had wrap-around porches, but inside they were 
growing marijuana. In fact, there were six structures designed to be 
like a housing development, and once again, all around it, posted, 
``This is for medicinal marijuana.''
  They uprooted more than 14,000 pot plants and seized $206,000 in 
cash. As the sheriff in Mendocino County has said, people will not find 
that the police have gone after cases where there has been any dispute 
whether it actually relieves pain. But as the police chief said, ``We 
are not going to have the law flaunted in our face.''
  When people abuse the medical marijuana laws in these States and when 
they flaunt the Federal law, they can expect law enforcement to come 
down on them. We should not tie the hands of the new DEA director or 
others in the Federal government who are trying to protect our children 
and families from abuse of drugs, from backdoor legalization and 
decriminalization, in the name of protecting a few who are struggling 
desperately, sometimes in their last days of life, with how to 
alleviate their pain and suffering. It upsets me that some would use 
these poor, suffering people as a guise for backdoor legalization.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, someone once said that a fanatic is someone who 
redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his purpose. I think there 
are some aspects of our drug laws can be characterized as fanatic.
  We use morphine for pain, we prescribe it. It is a controlled 
substance. I do not understand why marijuana, a controlled substance, 
should not be prescribable if a doctor feels that that drug is useful 
to someone who has cancer or AIDS or whatever.
  It is up to the doctors, it is not up to the politicians here in 
Congress, or it ought to be.
  Frankly, yes, George Soros has funded these referenda. In every 
referendum they have had, the people have spoken. Yes, the Federal law 
is supreme. We do not have to contest that. These laws cannot stand up 
against Federal law, but they are doing it through the States because 
this Congress and the President and the former President were not 
sensitive to the cries for help from desperately sick people and 
desperately pained people and their families. We ought to yield to 
those cries.
  This amendment simply says, let them have the relief from the pain. 
Let them do it. It has nothing to do with legalization, nothing to do 
with decriminalization. Those are other issues. But if a controlled 
substance is useful for pain, and, yes, we do not have decent studies 
on it because the DEA prohibited those studies, let us yield and help 
desperately sick people.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to get up until I 
heard the legalistic arguments against this proposal.
  Let me just say, my mother passed away recently. She had a major 
operation. I went to the hospital to visit her. She had lost her 
appetite, and she was in severe pain. She had lost her appetite because 
she had been taking pain medicine.
  When I talked to her and tried to comfort her, I was very grateful 
that I had voted for medical marijuana in my State when we had the 
election there, because that is what she needed for her situation where 
her outlook on life was so bad, and she was in such pain. She needed to 
regain her appetite and could not survive without regaining her 
appetite.
  The people of my county, a very conservative county, voted 
overwhelmingly for this, or it was a strong majority, anyway. The fact 
is the Federal Government should not come into a State or to my area 
where the people have thus voted because of their humanitarian concerns 
or whatever and supersede the vote of the people.
  This is a democracy. It is also a Federal system. When we have people 
at that level voting that a drug should be used for medical purposes, 
the Federal Government should not supersede that vote.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not regulate medical 
practice or license it, either. That is done by the States. We should 
not interfere with the States' conception of how medical practice ought 
to be carried out in those jurisdictions. We have never done so in 
other regards, and we should not do so in this one.
  Mr. Chairman, a great Justice of the Supreme Court in an earlier day 
made the observation that the States should be the laboratories of 
democracy. We have destroyed those laboratories. We are shutting down 
those laboratories. We are closing down democracy with these laws.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give us the opportunity to open

[[Page H4193]]

those laboratories again and to give the States the freedom to 
experiment in the way that they think is best in the interests of their 
own people.
  Mr. Chairman, I have determined over the course of the last few days 
that this House is not ready to vote on this issue at this moment. I 
wish it were. Therefore, I have taken the opportunity this evening to 
bring this issue before us to give us an opportunity to discuss it in a 
rational and logical and mature way.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). I understand that the 
gentlewoman from Texas will not be offering further amendments to the 
bill, but I will ask her to describe a program in her district.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kindness in yielding to me, and also for the committee's kindness in 
working with me in the extensive number of amendments that I proposed 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to help with an issue that is 
crucial to all of us, a $2 million grant to the city of Houston's at-
risk children's program under title V of juvenile justice.
  Mr. Chairman, my congressional district has seven school districts, 
and we have found statistically that after 3 p.m. is the most dangerous 
time for our young people. We have been successful with after-school 
programs.
  In particular, my school districts speak over 90 languages. 
Therefore, it is an enormously diverse community. As a member of the 
Houston City Council some years ago, I started the first after-school 
program, which was volunteer, in the city of Houston's parks, where 
children could come and stay supervised until about 12 midnight. It was 
a time when we had a gang crisis, and we saw the results.
  This is a very important effort in our community because it has 
emerging populations. As I have said, our numbers are increasing. We 
have found that we are saving lives with after-school programs. 
Therefore, I am very interested in making sure that we are able to 
solve some of these crises that deal with gang violence and, as well, 
children who are unattended because their parents by necessity have to 
work late hours.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned and interested in this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York and the 
gentlewoman from Texas. The committee will evaluate the Houston after-
school program for juveniles to determine whether it is an appropriate 
program to be funded through the Juvenile Justice grants in the bill. 
We will consider the gentlewoman's interest in the program as we move 
the bill through Congress.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree with my 
chairman that we will look at this juvenile delinquency program in 
Houston, as we continue consideration on this appropriations bill.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her concern in once again bringing this 
issue to us. The gentlewoman has our word that we will look at it as we 
go along and try to help in every way that we can.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York. I appreciate very much working with the chairman and working 
with the ranking member on this very important issue to our community, 
and working as we go toward conference to help us with respect to the 
city of Houston at-risk children's program.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would add $2 million 
to the Department of Justice Juvenile Justice At risk Children's 
Program for the City of Houston After School Program, which the 
amendment inadvertently calls the Houston At-Risk Children's Program.
  This juvenile justice program targets truancy and school violence, 
gangs, guns and drugs other influences that lead juveniles to 
delinquency and criminality. By keeping kids off the streets in after 
school programs, we are helping to combat juvenile delinquency and keep 
our kids and our families safe. Studies have shown that juvenile crime, 
pregnancy and a number of other problems among our youth frequently 
occur during the hours immediately after school and before parents 
arrive home.
  By earmarking a small portion of these funds, we can help youths who 
attend schools in the largest public school system in Texas, and the 
seventh largest in the country. The Houston Independent School district 
is also home to our current Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, and 
Houston is the fourth largest city in the country.
  HISD is the sort of school district that we want to entrust with 
federal funds to carry out a community based after school program. It 
has become a leader in restructuring public education, most recently by 
establishing unprecedented new standards that every student must meet 
to earn promotion from one grade to the next. In addition, it maintains 
a wealth of community partnerships with parents, businesses, social 
service and governmental agencies, colleges and universities, and civic 
groups that make valuable services available to the schools. The 
nationally recognized Volunteers in Public Schools program supports 
instruction by drawing on the talents of nearly 36,000 Houstonians. It 
is the efforts of these volunteers along with school personnel that can 
effectively turn these funds into successful programs.
  Legislators here in Congress and at the state level are quick to pass 
laws that criminalize the activity of youth and adults alike. Let us 
instead be quick to provide places for children to go so they need 
never be punished by those laws,
  I urge you to support this amendment to help students in one of our 
largest, most diverse cities in our nation.

                              {time}  2030


          Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any recommendation or requirement 
     adopted at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade 
     in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (July 
     2001), except to the extent authorized pursuant to a law 
     enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and then I will yield to my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), who has joined me in this effort.
  For the past 2 weeks, the United Nations has been hosting its 
convention on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons and all 
of its aspects. For those who believe that the United Nations intends, 
if they could, to impose registration, confiscation and destruction of 
firearms owned by citizens of the United States who are otherwise 
legally allowed to own firearms, their fears are confirmed by a quote 
from the U.N. Draft Program of Action.
  This is a United States document dated January 9, 2001, and let me 
read from that document: ``States will establish laws and procedures 
for the safe and effective collection and destruction of weapons which 
are circulating and available in such quantities as to contribute to 
high levels of crime and violence.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, who is going to 
make the judgment of when there is enough there to do that so that they 
can come in and confiscate and destroy our guns?
  If this administration was going to be the administration in 
perpetuity, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and I would not be 
standing here, because I have no concerns that this administration 
would do this. But they will not be here forever, and I think it is 
prudent for us to make sure that this kind of thing could never happen 
to our people.

[[Page H4194]]

  At an appropriate time, I will withdraw this amendment; but I would 
like to engage the chairman in a colloquy, along with the gentleman 
from Georgia, if he would, to the end that we hope to work out with him 
and the administration report language that could go into this bill in 
conference so that we can make sure that it is very clear that there is 
no intention that this could ever happen in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for a statement.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Maryland yielding me this time, and I appreciate the chairman of the 
subcommittee allowing us to engage in this colloquy.
  As the gentleman from Maryland knows, I spent a little bit of time 
this week, and last week also, at the United Nations Conference on 
Small Arms, and I can assure the gentleman that his concern is not 
misplaced. I am very familiar not only with the debates that have been 
going on in the United Nations, having been privy to a number of 
closed-door sessions up there as a member of our delegation; but I also 
have read in great detail the documents that are, even as we speak this 
evening, being grafted and changed by the functionaries and the General 
Assembly members at the United Nations.
  The gentleman is absolutely correct. The United Nations, through this 
effort which has been going on for several years and now culminates in 
this conference, looks to involve itself in a very substantial way in 
domestic U.S. policy in terms of furthering their goal of gun 
registration of lawful firearms, recordkeeping, and limitations on the 
manufacture, the possession, the transfer, and the export of firearms.
  So I salute the gentleman from Maryland for bringing this very 
important matter to the attention of this body. I appreciate very much 
the work of the chairman and the continuing work of the chairman to 
ensure that the U.N. is not allowed, insofar as this body is concerned, 
to involve itself in matters of domestic U.S. policy, as Under 
Secretary John Bolton indicated in his initial remarks, and which are 
now carried on on this floor by the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman said, meetings are going on 
now. The administration has expressed concern, and we will be glad to 
work with both of the gentlemen with regard to the conference and 
language that the administration supports.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Delahunt

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last title 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used after December 15, 2001, for any operation of the 
     Office of Independent Counsel in the investigation designated 
     ``In re: Henry G. Cisneros''.

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, after offering this amendment, I intend 
to ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn. Its purpose is to really 
send a message, and there is no need for me to insist on a vote at this 
time.
  More than 2 years ago now, and I believe to the collective relief of 
nearly every Member of this body, the Independent Counsel Act expired. 
Since then, almost all of the investigations pending at that time have 
been brought to a close. Yet 2 years after the expiration of the 
statute, one Independent Counsel, David Barrett, is still going strong 
at the cost of some $2 million a year to the American taxpayers, with 
no end in sight.
  Mr. Barrett was appointed in May of 1995 to look into charges that 
former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros had understated to the FBI the 
amount of money he had paid to a former mistress. It took Mr. Barrett 
more than 4 years and $9 million, but he eventually got his man. In the 
fall of 1999, almost 2 years ago, the former Secretary pled guilty to a 
single misdemeanor, for which he paid a fine and a $25 assessment for 
court costs.
  That was the rather anticlimactic end to the case involving Mr. 
Cisneros himself, but it was not the end of Mr. Barrett's 
investigation. It seems he was just getting rolling. He has kept a 
grand jury in session ever since, apparently hoping to determine 
whether during all those years someone, anyone, in the Government tried 
to shield the former Secretary from his investigation.
  As of today, Mr. Barrett has spent $15 million on a 6-year fishing 
expedition. It is costing the taxpayers another $1 million every 6 
months, and he has not caught a single minnow. Any ordinary prosecutor 
who carried on this way would have been sent packing years ago, but 
Barrett was appointed under the Independent Counsel law, and that means 
not even the court that appointed him can put an end to this inquiry.
  In June of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia granted Barrett yet another 1-year extension. The one judge 
who filed an opinion made it clear that they had no other choice in the 
matter under the language of the statute. So if Barrett says he has not 
finished yet, there is nothing the court can do. As the judge put it, 
and I am quoting from the opinion, ``The law literally construed may be 
that Mr. Barrett can go on forever so long as he claims or shows active 
grand jury activity, no matter how unpromising. We apparently have 
little choice but to accept representations of productive activity at 
face value, despite persuasive reasons for doubt.''
  Well, the court's message was clear. Congress may have killed the 
Independent Counsel Act, but like the heart that continues to beat 
after the brain is clinically dead, Mr. Barrett simply does not know 
how to stop, and the court is unable to pull the plug.
  The Barrett investigation is the last gasp of a statute whose folly 
is now generally acknowledged on both sides of the aisle. If there were 
any remaining doubt, Mr. Barrett's performance certainly reinforces the 
wisdom of our decision not to reauthorize the Independent Counsel 
statute.
  Judge Scalia had the foresight to recognize that Congress had created 
a monster it would ultimately be unable to control. He even foresaw 
that one day there would be a David Barrett, as he wrote in an opinion, 
and again I am quoting from that court opinion, ``What would normally 
be regarded as a technical violation may, in his or her small world, 
assume the proportions of an indictable offense. What would normally be 
regarded as an investigation that has reached the level of pursuing 
such picayune matters that it should be concluded, may to him or her be 
an investigation that ought to go on for another year.''
  What a perfect description of the Barrett inquiry. And it may 
ultimately be up to us to put a stop to it.
  In his request for his most recent extension, Barrett told the court 
that he hoped, and I am using his word, and I am quoting him, he 
``hoped'' he would complete his investigation by the end of this year. 
Fair enough. My amendment would have given him until December 15 to 
wrap up his affairs so he could finally turn out the lights, close the 
door, and look for a real job. Call it a ``welfare-to-work'' program.
  Mr. Chairman, I genuinely hope that Mr. Barrett is listening and that 
he will transform this hope into a reality. Then it will not be 
necessary to press this amendment at a later date.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know we have come pretty close to the end 
of this process, and I just wanted to take this opportunity once again 
to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for the work he 
has done on

[[Page H4195]]

 this bill, for the way in which he has treated me and our staff and 
our Members, for his understanding of these issues, and for the fact 
that this bill, which started out at the beginning of the day, actually 
last night, in my opinion to be a very good bill, has even become a 
better bill by some of the changes that we have made today, especially 
the issues concerning the Small Business Administration.
  I want to thank both staffs that are here with us at this time for 
the work they do. It is not only a service to us, the membership of 
this House, but I can assure you all it is seen as a service to our 
country and all of its citizens and residents.
  I wanted to once again thank the chairman for having an understanding 
of the needs that the minority needed in this bill and for putting 
together a bill that in fact speaks to so many issues and speaks to 
them in the proper way. We know that in conference there will be some 
changes, but we are hopeful that no one will hurt this project and this 
product, which is very good.
  On a personal level, I just want to thank the gentleman for his 
hospitality, for his treatment of myself and our staff and our 
membership, and just to tell the gentleman that it has been wonderful 
working with him; and I look forward to continuing this process.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for his comments. When the year 
started, I did not really know the gentleman very well, but I think we 
have become friends. I look forward to the opportunity when I come up 
to visit my two children, who are living in New York City, to come over 
to the gentleman's congressional district and spend some time and take 
a look around. I do appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I want to 
thank him for his friendship and cooperation.
  I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the 
outstanding work they have done. And I want to thank all of the 
Members, every single solitary Member that spoke on both sides of the 
aisle, for the very positive contribution; and I would urge a strong 
vote for this bill on final passage.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 35 offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), amendment No. 30 offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), amendment No. 6 offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), amendment No. 7 offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and amendment No. 12 offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 35 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) 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 395, 
noes 33, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               AYES--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--33

     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Castle
     Combest
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Flake
     Gilchrest
     Granger
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Meeks (NY)
     Nethercutt
     Payne
     Petri
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stump
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     English
     Hinojosa
     Millender-McDonald
     Spence
     Watkins (OK)

                              {time}  2109

  Messrs. CANNON, STUMP, NETHERCUTT, HYDE, SMITH of Michigan, YOUNG of 
Florida, and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Messrs. BEREUTER, SERRANO, PICKERING, SHAYS, 
EHLERS, LINDER, OSE, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H4196]]

  Stated for:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. #243, I missed 
this rollcall vote on the above number 243. Had I been here I would 
have voted ``aye.'' I was detained by constituents and was unable to 
get to the floor. It was unavoidable.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 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 161, 
noes 268, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--161

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hinojosa
     Millender-McDonald
     Scarborough
     Spence

                              {time}  2119

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 244, I missed 
rollcall vote No. 244, due to being detained by constituents. 
Unavoidable. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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 62, 
noes 364, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                                AYES--62

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Burton
     Cannon
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Foley
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Moran (KS)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Weldon (FL)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--364

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal

[[Page H4197]]


     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Millender-McDonald
     Nadler
     Owens
     Solis
     Spence

                              {time}  2127

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 245, I missed 
rollcall No. 245. It was unavoidable due to detainment by constituents. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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 71, 
noes 359, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                                AYES--71

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bryant
     Burton
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Coble
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Goode
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kerns
     Kingston
     LaTourette
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--359

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

[[Page H4198]]



                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hinojosa
     Millender-McDonald
     Spence

                              {time}  2134

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 246, I was 
unavoidably detained by constituents. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 10 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) 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 123, 
noes 306, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--123

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doyle
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--306

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hinojosa
     Jefferson
     Millender-McDonald
     Spence

                              {time}  2143

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, KLECZKA, MARKEY and PASCRELL changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 247, I was 
unavoidably detained by constituents. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye''.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, the Clerk will read 
the last 2 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, 2002''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill 
because I think that on balance it deserves the approval of the House.
  However, I do want to call the attention of the House to some areas 
in which it does not meet some very important needs.


                             RECA SHORTFALL

  Once again, this bill falls far short of providing enough money to 
pay claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or ``RECA.''
  The people covered by RECA include uranium miners and millers and 
some others who worked to support the nuclear weapons programs or who 
were exposed to its fallout. They were exposed to radiation. And 
because of that exposure they are sick, with cancers and other serious 
diseases. When Congress enacted the RECA law, we promised to pay 
compensation for their illnesses.
  But we have not fully kept that promise. We have not appropriated 
enough money to pay everyone who is entitled to be paid.
  Because of our failure, on April 17th the Justice Department ran out 
of funds to make RECA payments--and unless there is a supplemental 
appropriation, they will not be able to make any more payments for the 
rest of this fiscal year. As a result, people who should be getting 
checks are instead getting letters--IOU letters, you could call them.
  What are letters say is that payment must await further 
appropriations. What they mean is that we in the Congress have failed 
to meet a solemn obligation.
  The Department of Justice tells me that as of July 6th they had sent 
IOU letters to some 438 people nationwide. Justice also says that as of 
May 11th--these are the most recent state-by-state numbers--51 
Coloradans had received IOU letters.
  With other Members, I wrote President Bush about the problem of RECA 
payments. We urged him to request a supplemental appropriation for 
RECA, so that people would not have to wait much longer for payments. 
Unfortunately, the President did not see fit to make that request, and 
the money was not included in the supplemental appropriations bill as 
it passed the House.
  Fortunately, the Senate did add $84 million to the bill for RECA 
payments. So, it is very important that the House accept that addition. 
I have written to the House conferees on the supplemental 
appropriations bill, urging them

[[Page H4199]]

to agree to include the money and to score it as mandatory spending. 
But even if--as I hope--the supplemental bill does include the $84 
million more for the current fiscal year, we will have to do more.

  The Justice Department says that right now they are reviewing more 
than 3,200 additional RECA claims, and they expect more claims to be 
filed. So there is a real possibility that we could again find 
ourselves in a situation like we are in right now.
  We should not let that happen. We should change the law so that in 
the future RECA payments will not depend on annual appropriations. They 
should be paid automatically. I am cosponsoring legislation to make 
that change, and in its budget documents the Administration has 
indicated support for making RECA funding mandatory.
  But meanwhile we should be appropriating adequate funds to make the 
payments--and there is no doubt that this bill fails to do that.
  The Appropriations Committee understands the problem. Its report on 
this bill says ``The Committee is aware that over $200,000,000 is 
required in fiscal year 2000''--but the bill includes only $10.776 
million, a tiny fraction of the amount that the Committee itself 
recognizes is required. We need to do better to do that.
  The report also says that ``The Committee strongly encourages the 
Administration to work with the appropriate authorizing committees to 
develop other funding options for the payment of these claims.
  I take that to mean that the appropriations committee supports making 
RECA funding automatic. I hope that happens, and will do all I can to 
make it happen. But we should not penalize sick and dying people in the 
meantime.


                   nist construction and maintenance

  I am also very concerned about the bill's lack of funding for the 
construction and maintenance needs of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST).
  NIST has a laboratory in my district in Boulder, Colorado, where a 
staff of about 530 scientists, engineers, technicians, and visiting 
researchers conduct research in a wide range of chemical, physical, 
materials, and information sciences and engineering.
  NIST's laboratories in Boulder have a backlog of critically needed 
repairs and maintenance. As technology advances, the measurement and 
standards requirements become more and more demanding, requiring 
measurement laboratories that are clean, have reliable electric power, 
are free from vibrations, and maintain constant temperature and 
humidity. Most of the NIST Boulder labs are 45 years old, many have 
deteriorated so much that they can't be used for the most demanding 
measurements needed by industry, and the rest are deteriorating 
rapidly. Every day these problems go unaddressed means added costs, 
program delays, and inefficient use of staff time.
  Since 1999, I have fought for increased funds for NIST's Boulder 
labs. But despite calls from me and other House Members, from Members 
of the Senate Commerce Committee, from research organizations such as 
the American Chemical Society, and--most recently--from the chair of 
the Board on Assessment of NIST Programs, the Committee has again 
chosen to ignore these very real needs for maintenance and construction 
at NIST's Boulder labs.
  For the Record, I am attaching a letter from Linda Capuano, Chair of 
the National Research Council's Board on Assessment of NIST Programs, 
along with selections from the 2000 report of that board, that document 
the needs of the Boulder labs.
  As the Committee's Report notes, ``the Institute has proposed a 
multiyear effort to renovate NIST's current buildings and laboratory 
facilities in compliance with more stringent science and engineering 
program requirements.'' I don't understand how NIST's Boulder labs are 
supposed to begin renovations without appropriations for this purpose. 
What I do know is that I will continue to support NIST's funding needs 
throughout the appropriations process this year, and again next year, 
and the year after that if necessary.
  This is another area where I will seek to have the bill improved as 
it moves through the legislative process.

         The National Academies, Board of Assessment of NIST 
           Programs,
                                                      May 2, 2001.
     The Hon. Mark Udall,
     115 Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Udall: When we met at the University of 
     Colorado Engineering Advisory Board meeting in Boulder on 
     April 6, 2001, we discussed the inadequacies of the 
     facilities at the NIST Boulder campus. I explained that this 
     was one of the concerns highlighted in the 2000 report of the 
     National Research Council's Board on Assessment of NIST 
     Programs, which I chair.
       Attached are key excerpts of that report, which states 
     ``The Board and its panels have in the past several years 
     documented numerous inadequacies in the current NIST physical 
     plant. . . . Most egregious is the facility situation at the 
     Boulder campus. . . . (W)orkarounds and disruptions (caused 
     by facilities inadequacies) effectively raise the cost of 
     programs and extend the completion dates, requiring 
     inefficient use of resources and potentially delay results in 
     fast-paced technical areas to the point that U.S. 
     competitiveness is affected.''
       The Board on Assessment of NIST Programs and its 
     constituent panels comprise an independent technical peer 
     review body, convened by the National Research Council, and 
     consisting of approximately 150 members. These members are 
     chosen not only for their technical expertise but also for 
     diversity in age, gender, ethnic background, and regional 
     representation. Members are subject to screening for 
     potential sources of bias and conflict of interest. 
     Approximately 60% of the members are drawn from industry, 35% 
     from academe and 5% from other sectors. Approximately 10% are 
     members of the National Academies. Of the participants in the 
     fiscal year 2000 review, 4 members represent organizations in 
     Colorado.
       The Board on Assessment is chartered to review the 
     technical quality and relevance of programs on-going in the 
     NIST Measurements and Standards Laboratories. It examines 
     resource issues, including facilities, only insofar as those 
     impact the ability of NIST to maintain the technical quality 
     and impact of its programs. The independence of the Board's 
     review is maintained through the processes and procedure of 
     the National Research Council, which convenes and operates 
     the Board and its panels. In particular, the NRC is solely 
     responsible for the selection of the membership of the review 
     committee.
       I hope that the attached excerpts are helpful to you. It 
     was a pleasure meeting you last month.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Linda Capuano,
                      Chair, Board on Assessment of NIST Programs.

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 2002 Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill. I also wish to 
confirm that the intent of the language regarding the Northeast 
Washington State Four County Methamphetamine Task Force is that any 
funds disbursed to Spokane County can and should be shared with the 
City of Spokane, so long as the funds are used in a manner consistent 
with the intent of this section regarding methamphetamines. I believe 
that law enforcement officials facing drug crime every day know best 
how to use these funds in a coordinated effort between agencies.
  I have serious concerns regarding the growing meth problem. In 
Spokane County, police and sheriff's investigators encountered 86 meth 
labs in the first six months of this year. Data provided from the State 
of Washington shows that in Spokane County the number of reported meth 
labs and dump sites has increased from 11 in 1998, to 36 in 1999, to 
137 in 2000. Without additional funding this number will continue its 
dramatic rise.
  This issue is of federal concern in Washington State because of the 
U.S.-Canadian border implications that affect northern counties and the 
assistance to federal agencies these rural sheriff departments and 
prosecutor offices provide. Without local assistance, the federal 
agencies will be unable to properly protect our border. Without 
increased federal funding allocations, however, the local law 
enforcement agencies will be unable to combat the increasing 
methamphetamine production epidemic, assist with northern border drug 
smuggling situations and perform their law enforcement duties that 
ensure safe and law abiding communities.
  Dealing with these highly toxic and combustible labs brings great 
risks to our officers. These local agencies need our help to acquire 
equipment and training to help protect the lives of those who are doing 
their best to eradicate this problem. Not only are funds required for 
safety, but the amount of overtime required for clean-up taxes the 
resources of these departments, especially those smaller police 
departments located in rural areas. The topographical and isolated 
nature of mountainous counties in northern Washington State, and the 
lack of a strong law enforcement presence, are an invitation to meth 
producers. In Pend Oreille County, the meth problem is beyond the 
Sheriff Department's ability to manage. The per capita incidence of 
meth labs and dump sites is the largest in the state. Ferry County is a 
close second. Because of limited resources, the Sheriff departments 
responsible for patrolling these counties are small and are not 
prepared for the inundation of meth production they are experiencing.
  These three counties cover a large area, 6,085 square miles, which 
includes approximately 80 miles of largely unfenced U.S.-Canadian 
border, where the smuggling of marijuana from British Columbia, Canada, 
is an increasing problem. Deputies from these counties are routinely 
called upon by federal agencies to assist in border enforcement 
activities. These small, rural sheriff departments lack the

[[Page H4200]]

man-power and financial resources for overtime pay to handle local law 
enforcement duties, to combat increasing methamphetamine production and 
to be available to assist federal agencies when called upon.
  Methamphetamine is a national problem that must be attacked at the 
local level. It is an inexpensive and easy-to-produce drug that is 
easily transported throughout the country and can unfortunately yield 
great financial benefits, especially for criminals in rural counties. 
We cannot allow this problem to escalate more than it already has 
without acting. I urge my colleagues to support this funding and this 
bill.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to he 
cuts that this bill makes in one or our most successful federal law 
enforcement initiatives, the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) 
program.
  This legislation would cut $17 million from COPS. This may not sound 
like a lot of money, but when you have a program whose goals is to get 
more officers on the streets, patrolling our neighborhoods and 
protecting our families, any cut is the wrong way to proceed.
  We should be standing here, talking about ways that we can increase 
funding for this program, so that more communities can take advantage 
of it and put more officers on the beat.
  In my hometown of Houston, more than 1,000 new officers have been 
hired by law enforcement agencies. And COPS doesn't just provide money 
for new officers for patrolling.
  COPS has other programs, like COPS in Schools, which funds the hiring 
of officers to make the schools where our children learn and my wife 
teaches, safer and more secure.
  Other programs, like COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment 
Effective), provides funds to acquire new technologies and equipment, 
and hire civilians for administrative tasks. This allows more police to 
spend their time pounding the pavement and stopping crooks, instead of 
pounding the typewriter in station houses.
  Since its authorization by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994, COPS has added more than 110,000 community 
policing officers to our nation's streets.
  This is a program that works, and I hope that in the future, we can 
stand up and talk about how much money we are adding, rather than 
cutting, from this worthwhile program.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Obey, for not offering his amendment prohibiting the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) from expending any funds to modify its 
media cross ownership and multiple ownership rules. Had such an 
amendment been offered, I would have opposed it.
  As Vice-Chairman of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, 
I am concerned anytime this body considers telecommunications policy 
without properly allowing the committee of jurisdiction and experise--
the House Energy and Commerce Committee--from deliberating on the 
ramifications of such a policy change. Quite simply, there is a reason 
who this body does not legislate on appropriations vehicles. And as 
such, telecommunication issues and should be left up to the committee 
overseeing telecommunications policy. In fact, the House Energy & 
Commerce Committee has not been given the opportunity to analyze the 
ramifications of such an amendment, and the Committee certainly has not 
had the opportunity to hold a hearing on this amendment--a hearing in 
which Members would learn from testimony of experts.
  Mr. Chairman, by law the FCC is required to analyze its rules. 
Congress, in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically 
requires the FCC to review all of its broadcast ownership rules every 
two years to ensure they continue to serve the public interest. The 
head of the FCC, Chairman Powell, has stated that he plans to examine 
rules and policies relating to media cross-ownership and multiple 
ownership. This provision prevents the FCC from making any 
modifications to the current rules, even if the FCC concludes that it 
is in the public interest to further tighten, and not relax, media 
ownership rules. As such, we must allow the FCC to do its job without 
interference from Congress.
  Furthermore, some the FCC's current rules on broadcast ownership are 
being currently challenged in court. Under the Obey Amendment, if the 
Court vacates the rules and remands the case to the Commission, the FCC 
will be unable to act pursuant to the Court's order because the expert 
agency would be blocked from doing its job.

  And what do Members of this body have to fear by allowing the FCC to 
do its job and review its rules to determine if they serve their 
intended purpose? Most agree that in today's day and age, many such 
rules are antiquated, irrational, and inconsistent with the public 
interest, thereby doing more harm than good when it comes to 
competition. This, being the reason why the Commission is required to 
examine its rules, would be prohibited if this amendment is accepted.
  The rules my friend from Wisconsin fears would be changed were 
developed in the 1940s and 1950s. America has come a long way since the 
era when we had to let the old black-and-white TV sets warm up. 
Scanning the landscape today, one easily sees there are now 9 national 
broadcast networks, hundreds of cable stations serving nearly 70 
million households, 17 million home satellite subscribers, and these 
trends don't even reflect the millions of people who surf the Web for 
their news and commentary.
  The author of this amendment may also know that in the summer of 
1999, the FCC relaxed some of its broadcast ownership rules. And not 
surprisingly, consumers, competition, and Democracy were not harmed in 
any way. Had his amendment been accepted back then, none of those 
changes would have been allowed.
  I would argue that the FCC should continue to relax more of its 
ownership rules. Like I did in the last Congress, I recently introduced 
legislation to broadly deregulate the restrictive ownership limitations 
imposed by the FCC on the television broadcast industry. My legislation 
increases the national ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a 
reasonable response to the shifting needs of viewers and the industry. 
Furthermore, the FCC's current rules of owning two stations in the same 
market (duopoly) and definition of what constitutes a voice defies 
logic and is unjustified. My legislation adds some sense by defining 
cable as an independent voice. Additionally, it also repeals the FCC's 
rules that restrict a newspaper from owning a local television station 
within the same market. Such a repeal will result in a realization of 
efficiencies from consolidated operation, greater financial stability, 
and an enhanced ability to provide news and informational gathering.
  Some of my colleagues may have seen last week's USA TODAY article 
entitled ``Media's big fish watch FCC review ownership cap.'' Mr. Obey 
intended to offer this amendment in order to reflect his belief that 
concentrated media ownership is ``one of the biggest threats to our 
form of democracy--the other being the way our campaigns are 
financed.''
  Well Mr. Chairman, this body has devoted quite a while to properly 
debating how our campaigns are financed. Do we not, at a minimum, owe 
the same amount of deliberation to such a big threat? I thank Mr. Obey 
for withdrawing his amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2500, 
legislation to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002. Though the measure calls for a 
reduction to the highly successful COPS community policing program, I 
believe that this measure, on balance, adequately addresses our 
domestic and foreign commitments to justice and crime prevention.
  The bill would fund the activities of Commerce, Justice and State 
departments, as well as the judiciary and related agencies, at $41.5 
billion, which represents an increase of about 4 percent over the 
current spending levels, 2 percent more than the President requested. 
It is important to note that the President's budget calls for 
increasing the funding level for all appropriated programs is to be 
increased by 3.8 percent over the Congressional Budget Office's 2002 
baseline, which is about the amount necessary to maintain purchasing 
power at the 2001 level. However, adherence to this strict limitation, 
while at the same time increase defense and education spending, 
translates into a 1.2 percent reduction in funding in real terms. 
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2500 represents a reasonable 
starting point for negotiation with the Senate over funding priorities, 
taking into account the fact that the Senate traditionally sets funding 
at a higher level than the House.
  Under H.R. 2500, the Justice Department is slated to be funded at the 
$21.7 billion level, a 3 percent increase over the current level and 
the level requested by the President, and the judiciary is to be funded 
at the $4.7 billion level, a 10 percent increase over last year, but 4 
percent less than the President's request. While I am pleased that H.R. 
2500 would increase the funding to important law enforcement entities 
such as the INS, FBI, DEA, federal prison system, U.S. Court of Appeals 
and the Supreme Court, I am disappointed that it calls for a 2 percent 
reduction to the COPS program. At the same time, I do recognize that 
agreeing to funding COPS at the $1.01 billion is an accomplishment in 
itself, given the fact that this program is often the target for deep 
cuts in the House and that program was slated to be cut by 21 percent 
under the President's budget.
  I would also like to recognize the Committee's diligence in setting 
funding of other law enforcement programs that provide substantial 
support to state and local authorities in the administration of justice 
at or above this year's level. Given the sharp cuts called for in the 
President's budget, this was no small feat. I am pleased that H.R. 2500 
adequately funds

[[Page H4201]]

the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) which the State of 
Texas relies on to ensure that the federal government to pay its fair 
share of the costs associated with the incarceration of criminal 
aliens. H.R. 2500 funds SCAPP at $565 million, more than double the 
Administration's request. Additionally, the Local Law Enforcement Block 
Grant program, which provides block grants to be used for a variety of 
programs to reduce crime and improve public safety, is level-funded at 
$522 million, 30 percent more than the President requested. Further, 
the Violence Against Women Grants program, which seeks to encourage 
police to make arrests in domestic violence cases, and to provide 
funding to prosecute cases involving violence against women, will be 
funded at $390 million, equal to the President's request and 35 percent 
more than the current level. I am also pleased that this measure seeks 
to stem the incidence of juvenile gun crime committed by providing $20 
million for the creation of new federal-state task forces for ``Project 
Sentry'' to prosecute juveniles who commit gun crimes and the adults 
who provide those weapons.

  I am also pleased that this legislation contains a significant 
increase for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The $5.6 
billion provided under this bill represents an increase of $839 
million, or 17 percent more than the FY 2001 funding level, and $130 
million more than the Administration's request. The $50 million 
included for Southwest Border Prosecution will help state and local 
prosecutors along the Southwest border address some of the costs 
associated with processing drug and undocument immigrant cases referred 
from federal arrests. We must work with the communities along our 
borders to address the problems associated with drug trafficking and 
illegal border crossing, and I am pleased that the bill contains funds 
to help with this important effort.
  With regard to overall INS funding levels, it is important to note 
that while other federal agencies have grown at relatively slower or 
flat rates, from 1994 to 1998 the INS budget increased 93 percent. 
While I am pleased that Congress and the President have increased 
resources to enforce our borders and provide citizenship-related 
services, I remain concerned about the backlog of naturalization and 
other immigration applications. I concur with the Appropriations 
Committee Report language which expressed support for the increased 
funding contained in this bill, but also stated that management 
improvements must be undertaken to address the existing backlogs. I 
know in the Houston Region, the backlog for citizenship applications 
can last greater than 1 year, and permanent residency--have a backlog 
as long as 3 years or more. I am hopeful that the funding provided in 
this bill will address the backlog issue, which has presented a 
significant problem for hundreds-of-thousands of otherwise-eligible 
immigrants in Texas and across the nation.
  With respect to our international priorities, I believe the funding 
in this bill will adequately fund our global objectives, while 
providing modest increases for our diplomatic and consular programs; 
educational and cultural exchange programs; and for security and 
maintenance of U.S. embassy facilities. While I wish the Committee had 
appropriated more funds to implement the recommendations of the 
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel--which relates to the security of U.S. 
diplomatic facilities--I am pleased that a 20 percent budget increase 
for embassy security and construction is included in this legislation. 
In an era of increasing terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and our 
interest abroad, I believe we should be doing much more to increase the 
safety of our diplomatic corps working overseas. Overall, I believe the 
funding provided under this bill will assist the U.S. follow-through on 
our most critical international obligations within a fiscally tight, 
but reasonable framework.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support 
of H.R. 2500, an appropriations bill that generally reflects our 
nation's priorities both at home and abroad.
  Mr. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed legislation to 
establish the New Markets Initiative last December, it did so in a 
spirit of bipartisanship, to ensure that all of our nation's 
communities have the opportunity to realize the American dream.
  BusinessLinc is an innovative partnership between the Small Business 
Administration, the Treasury Department, and the business community. 
The program encourages large businesses to work with small business 
owners and entrepreneurs to provide technical assistance and mentoring. 
This program will improve the economic competitiveness of smaller firms 
located in distressed areas, both urban and rural.
  In speaking with many small businesses in my community, the Eleventh 
District of Ohio, it is clear that business success is predicted on a 
number of factors, such as the quality of the product or service, its 
price, marketing, the financial stability of the business, and the 
owner's experience. But one factor which has been largely overlooked in 
legislation is a business person's contacts within the community. Some 
call this the effect of the ``old boy's club.''
  My constituents have conveyed their frustration at being left out of 
informal networks that form the basis for later business dealings. 
These informal networks have a decided effect on an owner's ability to 
plan and a small business' ability to grow. Simply stated--information 
and skills are key to success.
  BusinessLinc will provide much-needed access to mentoring and support 
for disadvantaged businesses. In developing the BusinessLinc program, 
local coalitions have taken creative approaches to assist small 
businesses to employ strategies that best respond to the needs of the 
community.
  My colleagues, Representative Nydia Velazquez, the ranking member of 
the Small Business Committee, and Representative Sue Kelly will offer 
an amendment to restore funding to BusinessLinc, the 7(a) loan program 
and PRIME. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
demonstrate their support for business growth by funding BusinessLinc 
and other programs that are vital to the success of small business.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nussle), 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. 
2500) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 192, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.

                              {time}  2145

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). 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.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408, 
nays 19, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               YEAS--408

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley

[[Page H4202]]


     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--19

     Barr
     Conyers
     Cox
     Duncan
     Flake
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Petri
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DeGette
     Hinojosa
     Larson (CT)
     Shays
     Spence
     Tierney

                              {time}  2201

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________