[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.
____________________