[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7241-H7247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2799, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE,
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2004
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 326 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 326
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2799) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: the first proviso under the heading
``National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Salaries and Expenses''; in section 201, all after
``prescribed by the Act''; the final proviso under the
heading ``Federal Communications Commission, Salaries and
Expenses''; the final proviso under the heading ``Federal
Trade Commission, Salaries and Expenses''; section 603; and
section 607(a) and (b). Where points of order are waived
against part of a paragraph or section, points of order
against a provision in another part of such paragraph or
section may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph or section. During consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate
only.
[[Page H7242]]
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2799, the FY 2004 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies. H. Res. 326 provides 1 hour of general debate in the House on
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives
points of order against provisions in bill for failing to comply with
clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the rule.
The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have
preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This will simply
encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to
facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform
Members of the details of pending amendments.
Finally, the bill provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is a typical open rule to be considered for
general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the normal
open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply with
the standing Rules of the House may be offered for consideration. While
a vast number of amendments are not expected, the rule permits those
Members who have amendments every opportunity to offer them.
I want to begin by noting the good work of the Committee on
Appropriations' subcommittee in bringing this legislation to the floor.
The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and his subcommittee are to
be commended for setting the funding priorities of these departments
and agencies despite a number of challenging funding limitations.
That said, while I do not agree with every provision in the bill,
this rule will provide House Members with every opportunity to offer a
number of amendments to improve this important appropriations bill.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, there will be sufficient time during general debate to
discuss the specific provisions in this bill, but I did want to point
out a couple of provisions within this appropriations bill that
recognize the post-9/11 commitment of this House to ensure that law
enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to combat
crime in America while meeting the new challenge of international
terrorism.
This includes $4.64 billion in funding for the FBI, $424 million
above the FY 2003 level, to support efforts to improve counterterrorism
and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime,
drugs, corporate fraud and cyber-crime.
In addition, the bill includes $2.16 billion for the DEA, which is
$237 million above the FY 2003 funding, to establish a Drug
Intelligence Fusion Center to allow agencies to share real time
investigative data and support the creation of new positions.
In terms of providing for law enforcement at the State level, this
bill provides $3.5 billion to assist States and localities in fighting
crime. This includes $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400
million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, $462 million
for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs, $388
million for violence against women, prevention and prosecution, $174
million to eliminate DEA analysis backlogs, and $400 million to
reimburse States for criminal alien detention costs.
Mr. Speaker, this rule ensures an open amendment process for
consideration of the funding legislation for the Departments of
Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule so we may begin debate on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Committee on
Appropriations has done the best it could with this spending bill, but
the actions of the Republican leadership have created major holes,
failures that will leave Americans vulnerable to terrorist attacks at
home and to political abuses here in Washington.
First of all, this bill is yet another example of how Republicans are
mortgaging America's security in order to pay for tax breaks for the
wealthiest few. Simply put, Republicans have spent trillions of dollars
on tax breaks, and now they do not have enough money for law
enforcement. They gave expensive tax breaks to the small, elite group
of Bush Pioneers and Rangers who fund Republican campaigns, and now
this bill shortchanges local law enforcement and the successful COPS
Program.
Mr. Speaker, local police officers are on the front lines of homeland
defense, so the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment to
give police the support they need. To pay for it, all you have to do is
ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than they are
already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade; about 200,000
millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over $88,000 in tax
breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would benefit from
critical law enforcement investments.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill leaves America's preeminent law
enforcement agencies subject to partisan political abuse. Fortunately,
Republicans will not have to ask millionaires to forgo further tax
breaks in order to solve this problem, but they will have to stand up
to the growing threat America faces from misuse of power by this one-
party government.
Last Friday, a Republican Member of this House used his power as a
committee chairman to send the police after Democrats, Members of
Congress who had done nothing more than ask for more time to read a
brand-new piece of legislation.
For many of us, that recalled an incident just 2 months ago. Then,
Texas Republicans in Austin and in Washington tried to use Federal
security officials as their own personal political police force. The
Homeland Security agency, charged with tracking down terrorists, was
enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track down Democratic
lawmakers who had done nothing more than employ a parliamentary tactic
in a legislative dispute, a tactic used by Republicans in the U.S.
Senate, as well as Abraham Lincoln, in order to defend their
constituents against an outrageous political power grab.
The FAA, whose core mission is to keep airplanes and their passengers
safe in the air, was misused to track down a Democratic legislator's
private airplane. And once Republicans found the Democratic
legislators, they urged the FBI and the U.S. Marshals to arrest them
despite the clear fact that they had violated neither State nor Federal
law.
Justice Department officials say they did nothing wrong, but
newspapers reported that an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried
to find the Democratic legislators and spoke of ``ongoing
surveillance.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this was not the first evidence of
Republican misuse of the Justice Department. In May, a distinguished
member of the Texas House of Representatives, Representative Richard
Raymond of Laredo, withdrew his voting rights complaint from the
Justice Department after receiving reliable information that a powerful
Republican in Washington had interfered with it. Instead,
Representative Raymond had to go to a Federal Court to defend the
voting rights of his Hispanic constituents.
Mr. Speaker, we face a serious problem when the Department of Justice
has been so politically abused that Americans no longer trust its
ability to defend their voting rights; and there is only one way to
restore the integrity of the Justice Department, through a
comprehensive investigation that lays out all the facts before the
American people and then acts to ensure the Department can never be
abused again.
That is what the Department of Transportation did this month. They
quickly conducted a thorough investigation and released to the Congress
their full 800-page report. And, just as importantly, they strengthened
their rules, instituting a new regulation, that at least one newspaper
has named after one of the Texas Republicans, to
[[Page H7243]]
ensure that politicians could never again misuse America's air safety
resources.
In contrast, the Homeland Security officials released only a partial,
heavily edited report, less than 100 pages in length, and they are
still stonewalling with the help of Republicans on the Select Committee
on Homeland Security.
Unfortunately, the Justice Department and some House Republicans have
followed that sorry example. It has been 10 weeks since Texas
Republicans tried to misuse the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the
Department of Homeland Security for partisan purposes. For several
weeks, Justice Department officials tried to keep secret their internal
investigation, and they still have not released any information to
Congress.
Meanwhile, the Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary, many of
whom often led the charge to investigate a Democratic administration,
have turned a blind eye to the Justice Department's stonewalling.
Mr. Speaker, this entire episode has brought discredit to the House
of Representatives and to many of America's premier Federal security
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, the
FBI and the entire Department of Justice.
In Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch has written of an ``egregious'' misuse
of Federal resources. The San Antonio Express-News has called it
``offensive for a Member of Congress to manipulate a Federal agency to
track down political foes in a strictly political situation.'' And as
the Houston Chronicle wrote today of Chairman Thomas' attempt to use
the police against Democratic Members last week, ``The latest incident
again betrays a particularly disturbing tendency of the party in power,
the Republicans, to regard police agencies as enforcers, not only of
the law, but of the majority's political will.''
That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that would
institute a new rule at the Department of Justice to protect it against
political abuse. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules
blocked it last night.
So, once again, the Republican Members of this House face an
important substantive choice on the critical parliamentary vote known
as ``the previous question.'' They can stand with their leadership and
vote ``yes'' and protect Texas Republicans who misused Federal law
enforcement earlier this year. That is basically what happened last
Friday, when Republicans refused to vote for a resolution, saying it
was wrong to call the police against your political opponents. But I am
hoping that today Republican Members will follow a different role model
and begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives.
More than 30 years ago, a Republican, Senator Barry Goldwater, went
to Richard Nixon and told him the hard truth, that he had abused his
power in the Washington scandal and that it was time for him to resign
the Presidency. Today, on the previous question vote, Republican
Members can follow that courageous example. They can stand up against
abuse of power and they can say that the Justice Department belongs to
the people of America, not to any political party.
All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge my
Republican friends to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would like to remind
Members not to wear communicative badges while under recognition in
debate.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear, what the amendment is all about
that I sought to offer, but which the Republicans ruled out of order in
the Committee on Rules last night.
We had this situation in Texas involving a dispute, a partisan
political dispute, over the attempt by Republicans in our legislature
to redraw congressional district lines a second time in the decade.
They had been drawn, of course, 2 years ago by a Federal Court after
the legislature refused to act.
What happened was that a powerful Member on the other side of the
aisle, one who is often seen on this floor, contacted the Justice
Department and inquired, would it be all right, would it be
appropriate, for the Justice Department to dispatch U.S. Marshals and
to dispatch the FBI to track down Members of the Texas legislature who
had broken a quorum?
Now, when a powerful Member of this institution makes an inquiry like
that to the Justice Department, it is a suggestion, a very strong
suggestion, that the Justice Department should get after it and should
use the assets and the resources of the Justice Department.
In fact, we do know that an FBI agent in Texas made a phone call up
to Ardmore, Oklahoma, perhaps he was encouraged in this inquiry by a
powerful Republican on the other side that the Justice Department
should be involved, to find out about the status of the legislators, to
find out whether they were there and what was going on. We do know also
that an inquiry was made to the U.S. Attorney's office in San Antonio,
Texas, about the propriety of the U.S. Attorney's Office being
involved.
Now, these are matters that have been in the public domain. This is
not something anyone is making up. A very powerful Republican on the
other side tried to involve the Justice Department in a partisan
political dispute, and that is what my amendment would go to. After
all, the FAA just recently had to change its procedures because that
same powerful Republican Member contacted the FAA and caused the FAA to
have 13 of its employees over an 8-hour period use Federal resources to
try and track down those same Democrats who had gone to Oklahoma.
Now, what did the FAA do? They did the right thing. They instituted a
rule saying, Well, it was a little gray area in the past, but we will
make sure we never do this again; and no powerful person on the other
side of the aisle will be able to pick up the phone and cause us to be
involved in a political dispute and use our resources for that purpose.
That is all we are asking be done by the Justice Department, to take
the same actions the FAA has already taken, the Department of
Transportation has already taken. But, no, my friends on the other side
do not want to encourage the Justice Department to do the right thing.
We cannot, Mr. Speaker, become a police state. Just as a powerful
committee chairman called the police to track down and to break up a
meeting of Democratic Members of this body last Friday, and just as
another powerful Member on that side tried to use the FBI and the
Marshal's Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FAA and the
Department of Homeland Defense to become a police state. That should
not be permitted.
We are not some Third World power. We are not some ``banana
republic'' where we use the police to settle political disputes. Shame
on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I join him in this effort to see that the previous question is
defeated.
Mr. Speaker, last week, America witnessed a vivid example of how
tyranny can begin in this country. The same Republican leadership here
in the United States Congress that has blocked the Armed Forces Tax
Fairness Act, that has blocked relief for working families on the child
tax credit, that same Republican leadership was so eager to thwart the
opposition that the chairman of one of the committees called in the
police to break up the Democratic opposition organizing some
alternatives to an important piece of legislation.
This is how tyranny can begin in America, and it is certainly not
unique to what happened. This is further evidence of the extremism
occurring in this Congress.
It is very tied to what my colleague from Texas has been talking
about that occurred in the State of Texas. Indeed, it has nothing and
everything to do with what happened in the Texas legislature. Nothing,
in the sense that all we were trying to do in the United
[[Page H7244]]
States Congress was not to walk out, but to walk into participation,
just as we have done with the child tax credit, to say that working
families ought to have an opportunity to get their taxes cut also and
get this credit for their children.
{time} 1115
We wanted to participate, not to walk out. So it has nothing to do
with Texas in that sense, where legislators legitimately broke a
quorum; but it has everything to do with what happened in Texas with
regard to the misuse of law enforcement resources, of becoming a police
state.
In Texas, what happened is that immediately after this lawful action
by the State legislators, the majority leader of the Republican Party,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), here in the House, came out and
said, call out the G-men. He opined that this was a proper matter for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the U.S. Marshals Service, for
the United States Attorneys Office; and ever since he voiced that
opinion that these people ought to be involved in a political dispute
in Texas in order to advance his power grab, his political interests,
we have been trying to find out from John Ashcroft how much of those
resources were allocated. And guess what? We have not gotten one bit of
information from them, unlike the Federal Aviation Administration,
which has disclosed the truth and revised its procedures, recognizing
that the FAA has a little bit more to do with air safety than advancing
the political interests of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the
Republican Party.
The Homeland Security Department provided us a half truth. They only
wanted to look at one incident, not how all of their resources were
used. But the Justice Department has gone them several better, by
providing no truth, no answers with regard to how these Justice
Department resources were misused, and that is why the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) is advancing this effort today, because we need to
know that information.
In America, our freedoms will not be taken from us all at once, but
they can ebb away; and when we see police-state tactics here in the
Congress, for the first time in the memory of this institution; when we
see a powerful figure like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
summoning in the G-men to use them for political purposes; when we see
the Department of Homeland Security diverted from protecting us against
terrorism into using their resources for personal political ends, that
is something Americans should be very concerned about.
I was pleased to see the Houston Chronicle today editorialize on this
very matter [``Not Police Matter: Leave Law Enforcement Out of
Legislative Tussles,'' Houston Chronical, July 22, 2003], saying that
we should leave law enforcement out of these legislative disputes,
whether it is in Austin, Ardmore, or the United States Capitol. By
following the lead of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), and defeating the previous question, we will advance this
concern; not just fighting amongst each other, but fighting for
something important.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring the body's
attention to an amendment that was added in the full committee over the
objections of the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee.
It was an amendment added by our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Tiahrt), that barely passed, but should not have. It was not the
subject of hearings. It has no support from law enforcement. It has no
support from Attorney General Ashcroft. And it has no support from the
major association that represents licensed firearms dealers. It really
serves to protect only the most corrupt gun dealers at the expense of
all other legitimate gun dealers.
Specifically, this amendment provides protection to phantom dealers.
These are people who sign up as dealers to be able to buy guns
wholesale, but without the intention of reselling them, so they are
really not businesses, as such, and should not be buying guns
wholesale. Normally, they distribute them for illegal purposes. It
permits recalcitrant dealers to ignore police requests for assistance.
Nearly all licensed dealers perform this duty quickly and accurately to
law enforcement, but there are about 8 percent of crime guns that
cannot be traced because licensed dealers refuse to cooperate with
police. This would legally allow them to refuse to cooperate with the
police and allows licensed gun dealers not to cooperate in making gun
traces. That clearly is counter to people's public safety.
It allows felons to retain Federal firearms licenses. It denies
Congress and the public crime gun data that the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms needs. It ends the oversight of used firearms
sales, and it requires destruction of records that now the Federal
Bureau of Investigation needs.
All of these things, I think, undermine the public's need to protect
itself from felons, from people with a history of mental illness, from
people who are involved in the illegal transfer of firearms. We had
somebody that provided the firearm that was used by the snipers that
killed many people in the Washington area. They went back to the dealer
and found that there were over 100 firearms that they had no record of.
Well, they do not keep records because they do not want people to know
that they either sold to felons or to people who are minors, or they do
not want to pay taxes, or whatever the reason. But clearly, they should
be having records. This would enable them to refuse to cooperate with
law enforcement.
So I want to make the Members aware of the fact that this amendment
is in this bill, and it is a bad amendment.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes).
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in strong support of H.R. 2799, the
bill providing appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
State, and the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that lies along the U.S.-Mexican
border. For many years, the region along the 2,000 mile stretch with
Mexico has been ignored. The bill before us today will make tremendous
strides to recognize the importance of increased resources to our
southwest border.
This bill before us includes 168 additional positions for the United
States Marshal Service for areas of high-priority need. It also
recognizes that the areas along the southwest border are in the
greatest need for these positions.
My district in El Paso lies within the western district of Texas.
This judicial district has been one of the greatest impacted by a
criminal caseload over the last decade. The majority of these cases are
being heard in the El Paso Division of the Western District. The number
of Federal cases filed in El Paso County alone has increased from 443
to over 2,100 cases since 1994. Last year, the El Paso Division
received our second Federal judgeship. Currently pending before the
Senate is a confirmation of an additional two Federal judges.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, our caseload is being addressed and
more of our cases are being heard. This also increases the work of our
judges which, in turn, means more work for our Marshal Service.
Currently, our marshals are reporting inoperable workload levels in the
southwest border districts.
This bill would provide much-needed relief for our United States
Marshal Service along the southwest border districts. I urge all of my
colleagues to support the rule and to support passage of this bill.
In addition to that, this bill also includes funding for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which the President, in the last two
cycles, has zeroed out. Last year we were able to provide $250 million,
and this year, $400 million.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to
support this rule and this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from
[[Page H7245]]
Texas that in order to support the rule he is going to have to support
the previous question to get to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time. I will be very, very brief.
I am going to support this rule. I am going to support it because the
rule speaks to a bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf)
and I worked on very hard to make the best of a very difficult
allotment to the committee. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf)
was very fair, as I will explain during general debate, about meeting
certain needs. There were some shortcomings in the bill that hopefully
will get better.
But, most importantly, I support the rule because the rule supports
some very difficult decisions that the committee made in terms of
amendments; and the rule could have, as in past occurrences, played
around and fooled around with those decisions by the committee. It did
not. It supports the committee work; and, therefore, I stand in support
of the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to this rule because it protects language added in the committee that
severely restricts the ATF's ability to investigate sham gun dealers.
This ill-advised provision was never the subject of a hearing and has
no support from law enforcement. Our gun laws are already riddled with
loopholes that make it difficult for the ATF to do their job. And now
we are going to make it even more difficult by preventing the bureau
from requiring firearm dealers to conduct a physical inventory, from
denying licenses to dealers whose sales fall below certain levels, and
from demanding that certain dealers provide documentation for all used
guns sold in a specific period.
Why would we vote to make it easier for bad-apple dealers to sell
guns illegally? Just a few months ago, this body provided them
protection against lawsuits, and now we are going to make it even more
difficult to ensure that gun dealers are not transferring guns
illegally.
We keep hearing from the gun lobby that we need to enforce the laws
on the books instead of passing new laws. Well, at this pace, we are
not going to be able to enforce any laws on the books. There will not
be any laws to enforce.
It is clear to me that the gun lobby will not be happy until our gun
laws are rolled back to the era of Jesse James and the Wild West. I
wonder if they realize that for every gun that illegally falls into the
wrong hands, lives are at risk, especially our law enforcement
officers.
I urge the defeat of this rule so that we can strike the
irresponsible language from the bill and, for once, look at the impact
of rolling back our gun safety laws instead of bowing to the gun lobby.
Let me say that we are still fighting gun violence in this country,
and we are also fighting terrorism on the home front. Why would we make
it easier for those that might be terrorists in this country to be able
to go and buy their firearms? I do not understand what this Congress is
doing. We are supposed to be protecting our constituents. We are
supposed to be protecting our neighbors. This is going on constantly. I
urge the defeat of the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), in her
statement today in saying I think this rule protects an ill-advised
provision that ironically makes our country less safe at a time when we
are worried about terrorism and countering terrorism. The fact of the
matter is, terrorism exists all over this country for those who live in
the inner cities and are subjected to the random gun violence that
plagues many of our neighborhoods.
When people talk about homeland security in America, they are not
talking about al Qaeda; they are talking about the gun dealers who
knowingly sell guns in untold numbers, knowing full well that those
guns can easily be resold in the back of a trunk of a car in downtown
Washington, D.C. And what does this provision in this rule allow? This
provision in this rule allows us to roll back those few safeguards that
we already give law enforcement, to ensure that those guns that are
sold are sold in a legal and proper manner.
We often hear from the NRA, well, we are for law-abiding people being
able to purchase law-abiding permits and guns. Well, apparently not,
under this language, because what essentially they will do is make this
language a criminal's delight, because they will not have to cover
their tracks, because there will not be any tracks for them to cover
under this legislation, which eliminates any inventory provision for
gun dealers to be able to ensure that the guns that they sell are guns
that are sold legally and lawfully.
The fact of the matter is that this legislation is protected under a
rule that is supposed to be about appropriation bills, but, in this
case, is about protecting an authorization for a loophole that puts our
public at risk, puts our law enforcement at risk, and contradicts
everything that we are standing for on this floor when it comes to
protecting the American public.
{time} 1130
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues, what the rule
does is routine in appropriations bills. We protect the product of the
committee and have an open amending process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join my good friend and colleague
in echoing so many of his very eloquent comments.
I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2799, the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill. While this bill contains many good
provisions, I, like my colleagues, are deeply disappointed that this
bill prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from
enforcing laws already on the books. The bill's language is a major
step backwards when we should be doing more to ensure that guns are
kept out of the hands of criminals.
A 1998 ATF study showed that over 50 percent of firearms used in
crimes were traced back to just 1.2 percent of the Nation's 104,000 gun
dealers. One delinquent dealer in Tacoma, Washington, was missing 78
firearms listed on the store's inventory, including the rifle used by
the D.C. area snipers last year.
To address this problem, I have introduced H.R. 1540, the Crackdown
on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act, to increase ATF inspections of gun
dealers, not eliminate them.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today undercuts the current
enforcement provisions and prevents the ATF from doing its job. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this rule. Let us do the right thing for the
people of America.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I explained at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, today
Republican Members have the opportunity to begin to restore some
integrity to the House of Representatives. All they have to do is vote
no on the important parliamentary procedure known as the previous
question.
If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow
the House to vote on my amendment to ensure that the Justice Department
can never again be abused for partisan political purposes.
I wish this were not necessary, Mr. Speaker. But earlier this year
Texas Republicans tried to treat the Justice Department as the
enforcement arm of the Republican Party. And so it is vital to the
integrity of the Justice Department that we force it to do what the
Transportation Department has already done, institute what at least one
newspaper has called the ``DeLay Rule'' to protect it from future
political misuse.
[[Page H7246]]
To be clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not block
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. It will only allow the
House to ensure Americans that Federal law enforcement belongs to the
people and not to a political party. But a ``yes'' vote will stop my
amendment and it will send the signal that this Republican House
refuses to protect the Department of Justice against partisan misuse.
So I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in opposing the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to remind those of my
colleagues on the minority side of the aisle, who said they would urge
their colleagues to support the rule, that you will not get a chance to
do that unless they pass the previous question.
So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H. Res. 326, the rule governing floor debate on H.R. 2799, the
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Bill for FY
2004. Although this is an open rule, several important amendments
offered by my Democratic colleagues did not receive a waiver on points
of order.
I personally proposed four amendments to H.R. 2799 that improved
valuable programs administered by the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State. The first amendment mandated that no funds be used by the
Department of Justice to conceal or destroy physical and electronic
records and documents related to any use of Federal agency resources in
the Texas redistricting controversy. The second amendment stopped
funding to any project that prohibited projects that promote the
participation of women in international peace efforts. The third
amendment prohibited funding programs that prevented the study of
``good time'' for persons incarcerated for non-violent crimes. The
final amendment prohibited funding any attempt to prevent the Small
Business Administration from providing technical assistance to small
businesses participating in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are but a few of many valuable amendments that were not
provided waivers to points of order under this rule. Yet again, party
politics has influenced the decision making of the rules committee to
the detriment of several programs that add value to the lives of
American citizens, American businesses, and people around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment and I encourage all of my
colleagues to do the same.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 326--Rule on H.R. 2799, Fiscal Year 2004
Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Frost of
Texas or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported (Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary Appropriations Act, 2004) Offered by Mr. Frost of Texas
At the end of title I (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) Both newspaper accounts and Federal agency
investigations have uncovered convincing evidence that on May
12, 2003 House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republican
officeholders in the State of Texas repeatedly contacted
several Federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation
Administration (Department of Transportation), the Air and
Marine Interdiction Coordination Center (Department of
Homeland Security), and the Department of Justice, seeking to
improperly involve Federal personnel and resources in a state
political dispute.
(2) In reaction to these events, the General Counsel and
the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation
immediately conducted a thorough investigation of these
improper activities. In a letter it transmitted to Senator
Joseph Lieberman on July 11, 2003, the Inspector General
concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration's
guidelines required ``considerable strengthening'' to prevent
future situations in which government officials such as
Representative DeLay might attempt to misuse Federal Aviation
Administration resources for political purposes. On July 15,
2003, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a new
internal guideline, known as the ``DeLay Rule'', requiring
Federal Aviation Administration employees to inquire about
the purpose of an inquiry before they provide outside parties
with flight information.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
following the example of the Department of Transportation,
the Department of Justice should implement promptly new
guidelines to ensure that its resources and personnel are
never again improperly used for partisan purposes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 199, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 401]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
[[Page H7247]]
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Andrews
Berkley
Conyers
Cubin
Dunn
Ferguson
Gephardt
Hensarling
Hunter
Keller
Meek (FL)
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Saxton
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1220
Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. FORD, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Messrs. FARR, McGOVERN,
BERMAN, OLVER, PASTOR, TIERNEY and RUSH changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________