[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7248-H7284]
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, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 326 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2799.
{time} 1225
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 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, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2799, the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and related agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill provides funding
for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their
homes and communities, to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to
predicting the weather from satellites in outer space. The bill before
the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements.
We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2004
spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the
funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce
resources.
The bill before the House today recommends a total of $37.9 billion
in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level
for fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request.
For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in
discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request.
The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to
perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The
bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support
State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. It includes
$4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of
$424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's
request. This funding will support almost 2,500 new agents and analysts
in the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts
and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud, and
cybercrime.
The bill includes $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs
and funding above the request for language translation and training
programs. $2.16 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement
Administration, an increase of $237 million above fiscal year 2003 and
$57 million above the comparable request to fight drug crime. The
amount includes a transfer of the interagency crime and drug
enforcement program under the DEA to consolidate drug law enforcement
efforts, $25 million to establish a drug intelligence fusion center to
allow agencies to share realtime investigative data, and funding above
the request to support 939 new positions, including 434 new DEA and FBI
agents. $3.5 billion is provided for proven State and local law
enforcement crime-fighting programs, which is $1.2 billion above the
request.
When combined with funding provided in the homeland security bill,
the committee is providing more than $2 billion above the request for
State and local crime control and domestic preparedness funding. The
bill restores funds for programs that were proposed to be eliminated,
including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for
the local law enforcement block grant program, and $400 million for
SCAAP.
{time} 1230
The bill also includes $179 million dollars for DNA backlog
elimination and crime lab upgrades, which is very important to the
administration; and $388 million for violence against women prevention
and prosecution programs, and $462 million for juvenile delinquency
prevention and accountability programs.
[[Page H7249]]
For the Department of Commerce, the bill provides $5.3 billion, a
decrease of $475 million below the 2003 level, which is largely a
result of the reduction of lower-priority spending in NOAA, and
elimination of funding for the Advanced Technology Programs. The bill
includes $319 million for the Economic Development Assistance Programs
to assist communities struggling with long-term economic downturns, as
well as sudden and severe economic hardship, the same level as 2003;
$1.24 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing
backlog in patent processing, $57 million above 2003; $494 million for
the international trade agencies to negotiate and verify free trade
agreements, $38 million above 2003; $3.05 billion for the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including $786 million for
the National Weather Service to improve forecasting.
The Judiciary: The bill provides $5.2 billion for the Federal
Judiciary, $304 million over fiscal year 2003 and $236 million above
the request, to process an all-time-high number of criminal and
bankruptcy cases in and of offenders under supervision of probation
officers. The bill continues funding for the renovation of the Supreme
Court building and Judiciary's critical, vital security requirements.
For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the
recommendation includes $8.4 billion, an increase of $570 million over
2003 and $223 million below the request. The committee's 2004
recommendation for foreign affairs agencies is $2.26 billion above the
fiscal year 2000 level. This is an historic increase of 37 percent in
just 4 years.
Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request,
and $200 million above fiscal year 2003, for worldwide security
improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities. The Department
is making great strides to expand and improve the worldwide security
construction program, and that is good news for the safety and security
of thousands of Americans and foreign nationals who represent us all in
the diplomatic frontlines overseas. The bill also includes funding to
support over 600 new positions to improve diplomatic security, border
security, and diplomatic readiness.
For the related agencies, the bill includes $2.2 billion, $83 million
above the current level; $746 million for the Small Business
Administration, an increase of $14 million over 2003, for important
lending and assistance programs for the Nation's businesses; $183
million for the Federal Trade Commission fully funding the Commission's
National Do-Not-Call list to protect Americans from intrusive
telemarketing calls; $338.8 million for the Legal Services Corporation;
$841.5 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect
American investors and implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a quick summary of the
recommendation before the committee today. The bill gives no ground in
the ongoing efforts to fight crime and terrorism and restores the
needed help to State and local law enforcement and to address their
most pressing needs. The bill also includes funds to protect our
diplomats working overseas, increases funding for international trade
agencies to negotiate and verify free trade agreements to protect
American jobs. It is our best effort to make a difficult choices to
match needs with scarce resources.
I want to personally thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano),
the ranking member, who has been very effective and a valued partner
and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and
thorough understanding of the programs in the bill.
I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
I also want to particularly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), full committee chairman, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), ranking member, for their help. The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) has been as fair as one could possibly be, and quite
frankly I think he has been an outstanding chairman of the full
committee. No one can complain about his leadership.
I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for their relentless
efforts in producing this bill. The staff did a fantastic job with what
was a very difficult allocation, and we should commend them. I first
want to say thanks to Mike Ringler, the clerk of the committee, who
leads long nights and made sure everything flowed smoothly as the
process went forward. I also want to thank his wife and his family for
the time away.
I want to thank John Martens, whose wife recently had a baby and he
was part of it, and is always running on full steam even though he has
long nights and has been away from home during this period of time.
I also want to thank Christine Ryan Kojac, who has been instrumental
in putting together the Commerce section of the bill. She has done a
lot of work to help the country that most people will never even know
about.
I also thank Leslie Albright, who has fought to make sure funding for
the Department of Justice and FBI remains adequate to protect the
country. Again because of her efforts, bad things will not happen;
people may not know why, but it is because of good work that Leslie has
done.
I also want to thank Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, the
subcommittee's detailees who have stepped into the subcommittee and
done terrific jobs. Both have been able to use their backgrounds to
significantly contribute to the subcommittee and have always had a good
attitude.
I also want to thank Dan Scandling and Janet Shaffron, on my staff,
and J.T. Griffin and Neil Seifring, in my personal staff, for their
efforts.
Finally, I want to thank Rob Nabors of the minority staff who has
been there with Mike every step of the way as the team has been working
on this bill. Also David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, and Nadine Berg from the
Democratic staff who were willing to pitch in.
It is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge all Members to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off where the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) left off, and that is thanking both staffs for the
work they have done. This is a difficult bill. It is a bill that at
times is loved by many and at times either disliked or feared by some.
So the staff, as we all know, day after day and night after night,
put together the work that they do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) has mentioned some names, and I want to just reinforce those
names and thank both the majority staff and the minority staff for the
work they do.
On my staff I would like to pay special tribute to Rob and David for
the fact that they just, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
said, in a relentless way never give up in making sure that things are
done properly; and on my staff, Lucy, Nadine, Pete, and everyone else
who is back in the office and works towards making this the product
that it is to date.
I would also like to join my chairman in thanking the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership and his understanding and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, for the
support he gives us in allowing us to go forward with this particular
bill.
But this could not be done, none of this, if we did not have the kind
of support that we have from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
who is such a shy guy that he actually left the floor so he would not
hear me praise him, but he is back.
When we look at the way that we handle politics in this country, when
we look at the way we legislate in this country, it is assumed by many
people, especially in the media, that if we come from different parts
of the country and if we have different political
[[Page H7250]]
philosophies that we will never get along and never work together. The
gentleman from Virginia and I may be living proof that if we believe in
fairness and honesty in dealing with each other, we can in fact work
together; and I am here to thank him publicly for taking a very
difficult, I believe and our side believes, allocation and meeting to a
large extent the needs that our side had and the concerns that we had.
He was able to reallocate dollars, to move dollars around, and to do it
understanding that in order to have a bill that has bipartisan support,
as I am sure this one will be at the end of the day, we do that by
understanding the needs that he has and the needs that I have, which
are representative of both sides of the aisle.
So I want to thank the gentleman for understanding that and for
working with us on this.
The process, as I say, was fair and a fair distribution of very
limited resources. I have to compliment the chairman especially for
some of the work that we did such as the fully funded Federal Bureau of
Investigations, FBI, which has been involved in a great part of our war
against terrorism and has needed our support and has received our
support.
On the other hand, because the FBI is engaged in the war on
terrorism, it has unfortunately, unfortunately and I hope only
temporarily, turned away from some of its other duties in the past,
such as the fight on drugs. It is not fighting the drug war the way it
used to in the past. And for that reason, I am also happy with the fact
that we were able to fully fund and go $43 million above the
President's request for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA,
to make up for the FBI's deemphasizing on illegal drugs.
The Office of Justice Programs, OJP, this bill restores $1.2 billion
for key State and local law enforcement grant programs including Byrne
grants, $650 million dollars; the local law enforcement block grant,
$400 million; State Criminal Alien Assistance program, $400 million. In
addition, those cultural and science and education organizations such
as UNESCO and others that we deal with in the international community
have been fully funded; and we, in fact, in some of these can once
again join these organizations to play our role in the international
community.
The international organizations, also, that handle peacekeeping and
that are involved in peacekeeping efforts throughout the world, that
has been fully funded at the request of $1 billion and $550 million
respectively. Worldwide security programs, full funding of the request
at $1.5 billion.
The Legal Services Corporation, I want once again to thank the
chairman for caring for some of the issues that so many Members care
for, and the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, is one of them. In the
past, we were forced to come to the House to try to amend the bill to
bring it back to last year's funding. The chairman has chosen in his
tenure as chairman of the committee to make sure that we do not do
that, that the bill is dealt with in committee, the agency is dealt
with in committee, and in fact, this year with $10 million above the
President's request; and I thank him for that.
Obviously, as we have said before, it has been a difficult
allocation, and therefore there are some issues that are still pending
and that are difficult. The most important one is the Community
Oriented Policing Service, the COPS hiring program, which is
underfunded this year. It has been funded properly in the past. It
continues to be an important program, and part, Mr. Chairman, of what
we are doing here today is hoping that with our support of this bill
and our continuing working together with the chairman in a bipartisan
fashion that as this bill goes to conference, some of the issues that
are still not properly addressed will be addressed. I am confident that
the COPS program enjoys a bipartisan constituency both here and in the
Senate that will allow it to get the kind of dollars that it needs.
There are, and I can go on, some other issues that still need to be
addressed, but on the whole, this bill, I believe, merits our support
and this approach merits our support.
I am also happy at the fact that a key amendment that was important
to all of us is in the bill, is protected by the rule and, I think,
makes a serious statement about the bipartisan effort in our committee.
As I said before, I fully support this bill, and I would hope that at
the end of the day, both sides of the aisle see it as the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I do and give it their full support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, the gentleman that I said
gives us the kind of support that we need on our side to function.
{time} 1245
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will be supporting
this bill, and I appreciate the approach taken by the subcommittee
chairman in putting the bill together. He has, I think, been most fair
and balanced in dealing with all of the pressures that were on him, and
he has certainly been fair with us.
Let me say, however, having said that, that I think the allocation
provided to this subcommittee was totally inadequate. And as the House
by now has come to understand, I have had a series of amendments trying
to limit the size of the tax cut which will be going to people who make
more than $1 million a year in order to free up some additional
investments in programs such as education, health care and the like.
We tried to do the same thing on this bill, but again, the Committee
on Rules refused to make that amendment in order. And so we will not be
able to offer and have considered by the House the amendment that would
have used a tiny portion of those revenue resources to folks who make
over $1 million a year in order to fund a number of law enforcement
activities that we thought were very important.
I do want to mention one provision which is in this bill, which was
adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee, which I am very pleased
about. As I think most Members know, there is considerable controversy
about just how much of the Nation's airwaves ought to be owned by the
media giants of this country.
The existing regulations had provided that no single corporation
could own television stations that reached more than 35 percent of the
national audience. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, in
my view ill-advisedly, changed that to increase the percentage of
national viewership that could be reached by a single corporate entity
in the broadcasting business to 45 percent.
There is a great deal of consternation about that across the country,
and I think that consternation is rooted in the fact that the public is
beginning to understand that five media conglomerates, Viacom, Disney,
AOL Time Warner, Newscorp and General Electric now control a 70 percent
share of homes that are watching during prime time.
There are 91 major cable networks, 80 percent of which are owned by
the same media conglomerates. Cable news networks are all owned by AOL
Time Warner (CNN), Newscorp (Fox News), and General Electric, which is
MSNBC and CNBC. The top 20 Internet news sites are also largely owned
by the same media giants.
So, in my view, that is a severe threat to democracy. I am pleased
that the committee adopted on a 40 to 25 vote the amendment that would
assure that we would return to the initial 35 percent limit, rather
than expanding it to the 45 percent limit that the FCC tried to foist
on the country.
I want to make clear, this amendment does not go beyond television
ownership. It does not get into issues such as cross-ownership between
newspapers and television. I personally wish it did, because I do not
like any of it. But the fact is that we have to be disciplined in
deciding how much we can choose to take on at the same time without
losing the whole argument.
So we have chosen to confine ourselves to this, the most egregious
portion of the FCC rules, in an effort to protect local values, in an
effort to protect local diversity of media voices.
I am very pleased that the committee has taken this position, and I
would hope very much that the House would
[[Page H7251]]
stand behind it as we move to conference with the Senate.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to highlight a section of the
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary bill that affects the
citizens of LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. The bill contains provisions
that separately direct the Office of Federal Detention Trustee and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to meet bed space needs using excess State
and private prison capacity, if these facilities meet the agency's
standards. In my home State of Louisiana, there is an empty private
prison in Jena, that is located near the Federal Bureau of Prisons
facilities at Oakdale and Pollock and near the U.S. Marshals Justice
Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, which is commonly known as
``CON-AIR.''
I believe that Federal use of the Jena prison is a wise use of our
government's resources. The folks in the LaSalle Parish are hard-
working people that are committed to their community. Reopening this
empty prison is of utmost importance to me, and I will continue to do
everything within my power to see that it occurs.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support
for H.R. 2799, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary for FY 2004. In particular,
this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Chairman of the Subcommittee and the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work under
difficult budget circumstances.
As a member of the House Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine,
this Member strongly supports the inclusion of $60 million for
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up, otherwise known as the ``hot
spots'' program. These funds are critical in State and local efforts to
combat the scourge of methamphetamine that is sweeping across our
country.
This Member also appreciates the Subcommittee's commitment to
Nebraska's efforts to fight a growing plague in Nebraska--the
manufacture, trafficking and abuse of methamphetamine. The Nebraska
State Patrol will continue the work began with the $500,000
appropriation from FY 2003, with an emphasis on funding for the cleanup
of clandestine labs. In 1999, approximately 37 labs were discovered in
Nebraska. By 2002, the problem had increased exponentially to 372 which
in turn has placed a huge burden on Nebraska law enforcement. The
Nebraska State Patrol will also use the funds for the State crime lab
to investigate methamphetamine cases and to continue a drug treatment
program for methamphetamine addicts.
Furthermore, this Member is pleased that $615 million is included in
the bill for the popular and vital Byrne grant program. This
appropriation is a top priority for Nebraska law enforcement. The Byrne
grant program is critical in crime fighting efforts--and especially
helpful to Nebraska law enforcement in fighting crimes related to drug
use. Clearly, methamphetamine alone is the driving force behind the
increase in crime in Nebraska.
The bill also includes important funds for the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grants (JAIBG). These funds have been used
throughout the State, and specifically assisted Douglas, Sarpy, and
Lancaster counties in developing juvenile drug courts. Almost 50 young
people have graduated from the drug courts over the last two years. In
addition, Douglas and Lancaster counties have also utilized funds to
develop computerized information systems and local graduated sanctions
programs.
An additional program of importance to Nebraska law enforcement is
the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) program. This Member is
pleased that funds are provided for this program. Nebraska is part of
the regional Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC). The
RISS program provides Nebraska law enforcement with a secure nationwide
state-of-the-art information sharing system that uses web technology,
allowing officers to access criminal activity information around the
country in real time. Additional services include, but are not limited
to, analytical assistance, high-tech surveillance equipment loans,
intelligence publications, investigative funds, computer forensics and
specialized training. As members of the MOCIC, many law enforcement
agencies in Nebraska are able to share critical crime-fighting
information that these agencies would otherwise not be able to access.
As today's criminals become more mobile and technologically advanced,
law enforcement's demands for RISS services continues to grow.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to
support H.R. 2799.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my
disappointment with and strong opposition to this bill.
It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to
cut jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the country--not
because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the
Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go
around.
Under the bill as it stands, important scientific facilities in my
district in Colorado--the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
will see approximately 200 jobs lost, maybe more. NOAA's labs in
Boulder will see a cut of 40 percent in funding in FY2004--that's
nearly cutting its budget by half in one year! I don't have as precise
information on NIST, but I am told NIST stands to lose roughly 300 jobs
between its labs in Maryland and Colorado--fully 10 percent of its
staff.
The bill doesn't fund mandatory cost-of-living increases for both
NIST and NOAA--so funds for these increases come out of programs and
out of the salaries of workers who are left without jobs. Further, the
bill does not include funding for safety, maintenance and major repairs
required at NIST's campus in Colorado. Without quality laboratory
facilities, NIST cannot provide the standards and measurement support
industry requires. The bill includes just two-thirds of base funds for
NOAA's Space Environment Center in Colorado, which suffered similar
shortfalls last year.
Perhaps most insulting of all--the bill would provide no funds for
NOAA's facility in Colorado to pay its $4.5 million in rent. Conferees
cut out funding for the rent in last year's bill at the last minute--
which is maybe more understandable, as we all know that sometimes odd
things happen in conference in the middle of the night. But this cut is
far more egregious. It is one thing when programs are trimmed back--it
is another when cuts in a bill literally take the clothes off our
employees' backs. NOAA is a Federal agency. How can the Federal
Government not pay its rent? How is NOAA supposed to meet this
shortfall? Its workload remains the same, but NOAA's resources and
workforce are getting progressively smaller.
I thought our goal is to create jobs! This bill will put hundreds of
Federal employees out of work!
And the bill hurts the private sector too. It cuts by two-thirds the
Manufacturing Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and
medium-sized manufacturers across this country. This bill entirely
eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, which helps small high-tech
start-up companies bring research results to the proof-of-concept
stage.
With manufacturing jobs being lost every month and high-tech
companies struggling, now is not the time to turn our backs on the
manufacturing community and our small high-tech entrepreneurs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I must completely oppose this bill. Unless the bill
is greatly improved in conference, it will continue a pattern of
bleeding these agencies dry--agencies that do so much to support our
Nation's economy and the public's well-being. As the bill stands, it
does not deserve the approval of the House.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2799,
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 2004. I am
pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in
H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted on April 10.
H.R. 2799 provides $37.9 billion in new budget authority [BA] and
$40.989 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2004--a reduction of $1.287
billion in BA and an increase of $500 million in outlays from fiscal
year 2003. Although budget authority in the bill declines by 3.3
percent from the previous year, it is $241 billion above the
President's request.
The bill therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act,
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays
established in the budget resolution.
The bill contains $1.125 billion in BA savings--$1.095 in BA and $383
million outlays from changes in mandatory spending, and $30.5 million
in rescissions of previously enacted BA. It does not designate any of
the appropriations provided by this bill as an emergency.
In conclusion, I commend Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman
Wolf for their hard work and can appreciate the tough decisions that
accompanied the crafting of this bill, especially given the current
fiscal climate. It is my hope that Chairman Young and Subcommittee
Chairman Wolf will continue to weigh both the state of our economy and
the safety of our Nation when they represent the House in conference
with the Senate.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and commend Chairman Wolf
for a fair and balanced bill that funds the Justice Department, the
Commerce Department, the Judiciary and the State Department.
I want to particularly commend the Chairman for a hearing that the
Subcommittee held
[[Page H7252]]
on May 22, 2003 regarding the impact of Chinese imports on U.S.
companies. As a result of that hearing the bill today includes funding
increases for our trade agencies so that they can better enforce
existing trade agreements. Many witnesses at the hearing testified that
their businesses were being overwhelmed by low-priced Chinese imports
that are causing them to down-size and lay-off workers.
The Commerce Department must be more responsive to U.S. companies,
and particularly those small- and medium-sized businesses, who are
being harmed by imports. In my district, I have heard from many small
and medium-sized manufacturers who say they have had to lay-off workers
because of Chinese imports.
According to a recent National Association of Manufacturers report,
Ohio has lost 97,100 manufacturing jobs between July 2000 and December
2002. This represents an 8.9 percent decline in just over two years.
Ohio had the third largest loss of manufacturing jobs behind California
and Texas. I urge officials of our trade agencies to take notice of
this manufacturing crisis in Ohio and in the U.S.
I will also work with the Chairman to seek restoration of funding for
the Manufacturing Extension Program to last year's level as the bill
moves forward. This program has been important in allowing small- and
medium-sized manufacturers to modernize and remain competitive in the
global marketplace.
I commend the Chairman further for the restoration of funds for State
and local law enforcement efforts to fight crime in our local
communities. This funding has allowed for the initiation of an
important project in Stark County, Ohio to link the communications
systems of all law enforcement agencies within the county. This will
prevent the tragedy that occurred last year when an officer in one part
of the county was shot even though agencies in the other part of the
county knew an armed and dangerous man was on the loose.
I urge support of this important appropriations bill that funds our
local, national and international security needs.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal
Year 2004 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I commend the gentleman from
Virginia, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for their hard work
on this legislation.
This important spending bill provides critical funding for state and
local law enforcement's crime fighting initiatives. I am particularly
pleased that H.R. 2799 provides $500 million for the Byrne formula
grant program. Byrne formula grants have long proven to be an important
aid to law enforcement agencies and I know that Nebraska law
enforcement officials have put this funding to good use.
In Nebraska, these funds support the multi-jurisdictional drug task
forces that are invaluable in the state's efforts to combat the influx
of methamphetamine (meth) in our communities. In addition, Byrne grants
have enabled effective inter-agency and multi-jurisdiction cooperation,
information sharing, and technology improvements.
According to the Nebraska Clandestine Lab Team, the number of
methamphetamine labs busted in the state increased from 18 in 1998 to
almost 250 last year. I cannot overstate the negative impact this
dangerous drug is having on rural communities in my district. Given the
vital role Byrne grants play in helping law enforcement officials fight
meth production, I appreciate the committee's commitment to this
important program.
As a Member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control
Methamphetamine, I strongly support the $60 million in funding for the
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up program included in H.R. 2799.
This legislation sends a strong message to our local law enforcement
agencies that the federal government is a partner in fighting the meth
scourge in our communities.
Finally, I want to thank the committee for their commitment to the
Nebraska State Patrol to carry out their comprehensive strategy for
combating methamphetamine in Nebraska. These additional resources will
enhance the efforts already in place in Nebraska to address the
presence of clandestine labs, distribution of methamphetamine and the
need for treatment.
I congratulate the Committee on bringing this legislation to the
floor today, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2799.
Mr. SERRANO. 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 general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendment to the bill
may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees for the purpose of debate; the amendments printed in the
Congressional Record numbered 1 through 13; the amendments that have
been placed at the desk; and two amendments offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), each regarding the United States Trade
Representative and labor standards.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member designated, or a
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or placed at the
desk, or a designee, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. R. 2799
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration of the
Department of Justice, $106,664,000, of which not to exceed
$3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43
permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and
$10,172,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership
Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these
offices in fiscal year 2003: Provided further, That not to
exceed 31 permanent positions, 33 full-time equivalent
workyears and $3,464,000 shall be expended for the Office of
Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That not to exceed 15
permanent positions, 20 full-time equivalent workyears and
$1,875,000 shall be expended for the Office of Public
Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned
offices may utilize non-reimbursable details of career
employees within the caps described in the preceding two
provisos: Provided further, That the Attorney General is
authorized to transfer, under such terms and conditions as
the Attorney General shall specify, forfeited real or
personal property of limited or marginal value, as such value
is determined by guidelines established by the Attorney
General, to a State or local government agency, or its
designated contractor or transferee, for use to support drug
abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education,
housing, job skills, and other community-based public health
and safety programs: Provided further, That any transfer
under the preceding proviso shall not create or confer any
private right of action in any person against the United
States, and shall be treated as a reprogramming under section
605 of this Act.
identification systems integration
For necessary expenses for the nationwide deployment of a
Joint Automated Booking System and for the planning,
development, and deployment of an integrated fingerprint
identification system, including automated capability to
transmit fingerprint and image data, $20,677,000.
legal activities office automation
For necessary expenses related to the design, development,
engineering, acquisition, and implementation of office
automation systems for the organizations funded under the
headings ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'',
and ``General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', and
the United States Attorneys, the United States Marshals
Service, the Antitrust Division, the United States Trustee
Program, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the
Community Relations Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the
Office of Justice Programs, $30,136,000: Provided, That, of
the funds made available under this heading, $22,000,000
shall not become available for obligation until September 15,
2004, and shall remain available until September 30, 2005.
narrowband communications
For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications,
including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land
Mobile Radio legacy systems, $103,171,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the
Attorney General shall transfer to the ``Narrowband
Communications'' account all funds made available to the
Department of Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile
radios: Provided further, That any transfer made under the
preceding proviso shall be subject to section 605 of this
Act.
Counterterrorism Fund
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney
General, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, to
reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the
costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability
of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed
as a result of any domestic or international terrorist
incident; and (2) the costs of providing
[[Page H7253]]
support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or
international terrorism, including payment of rewards in
connection with these activities: Provided, That any Federal
agency may be reimbursed for the costs of detaining in
foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism
that violate the laws of the United States: Provided further,
That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available
only after the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Administrative Review and Appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration-related activities,
$193,530,000.
Detention Trustee
For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee who
shall exercise all power and functions authorized by law
relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-Federal
institutions or otherwise in the custody of the United States
Marshals Service, $810,125,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Trustee shall be responsible for
managing the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
and for overseeing housing related to such detention; the
management of funds appropriated to the Department of Justice
for the exercise of any detention functions; and the
direction of the United States Marshals Service with respect
to the exercise of detention policy setting and operations
for the Department: Provided further, That any unobligated
balances available in prior years from the funds appropriated
under the heading ``Federal Prisoner Detention'' shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation under the
heading ``Detention Trustee'' and shall be available until
expended: Provided further, That the Trustee, working in
consultation with the Bureau of Prisons, shall submit a plan
for collecting information related to evaluating the health
and safety of Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions
no later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $56,245,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.
United States Parole Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized, $10,609,000.
Legal Activities
Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities
For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to
be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and
rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of
Columbia, $620,533,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000
for litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended, and of which not less than $1,996,000 shall be
available for necessary administrative expenses in accordance
with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Provided, That
of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall
be available to the United States National Central Bureau,
INTERPOL, for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon a determination by the Attorney General that
emergent circumstances require additional funding for
litigation activities of the Civil Division, the Attorney
General may transfer such amounts to ``Salaries and Expenses,
General Legal Activities'' from available appropriations for
the current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may
be necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided
further, That any transfer pursuant to the previous proviso
shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to
exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $128,133,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, not to exceed $112,000,000 of offsetting collections
derived from fees collected for premerger notification
filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of
collection, shall be retained and used for necessary expenses
in this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2004, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $16,133,000: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31,
United States Code, no employee of the Antitrust Division may
accept, nor may the Antitrust Division accept, payment or
reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel,
subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling
an employee to attend and participate in a convention,
conference, or meeting when the entity offering payment or
reimbursement is a person or corporation subject to
regulation by the Antitrust Division, or represents a person
or corporation subject to regulation by the Antitrust
Division, unless the person or corporation is an organization
exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,526,253,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000
shall be available until September 30, 2005, for: (1)
training personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors
and their property; (3) paying the net costs of selling
property; and (4) tracking debts owed to the United States
Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated,
not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for
automated litigation support contracts shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
Offices of the United States Attorneys, not to exceed 10,113
positions and 10,298 full-time equivalent workyears shall be
supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the
United States Attorneys.
United States Trustee System Fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized, $166,157,000, to remain available
until expended and to be derived from the United States
Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be
available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds
due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $166,157,000 of offsetting
collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation and
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
sum herein appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2004, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004
appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.
Salaries and Expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,205,000.
Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service, $678,672,000; of which $17,403,000 shall be
available for 106 supervisory deputy marshal positions for
courthouse security; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses;
of which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available for
development, implementation, maintenance and support, and
training for an automated prisoner information system and
shall remain available until expended; of which $2,000,000
shall be available for the costs of courthouse security
equipment, including furnishings, relocations, and telephone
systems and cabling, and shall remain available until
expended; and of which not to exceed $1,371,000 is for
constructing United States Marshals Service prisoner-holding
space in United States Courthouses and Federal buildings:
Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the United States Marshals
Service, not to exceed 4,240 positions and 4,074 full-time
equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds
appropriated in this Act for the United States Marshals
Service.
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of
witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and
supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel
expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, including advances, $156,145,000, to
remain available until expended; of which not to exceed
$8,000,000 may be made available for planning, construction,
renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of
buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto,
for protected witness safesites; of which not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and
maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of
protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000
may be made available for the purchase, installation, and
maintenance of secure telecommunications equipment and a
secure automated information network to store and retrieve
the identities and locations of protected witnesses.
Salaries and Expenses, Community Relations Service
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
$9,526,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of funds made
available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be
transferred by the Attorney General to this account:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon a determination by the Attorney General that
[[Page H7254]]
emergent circumstances require additional funding for
conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the
Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may
transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service,
from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for
the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to
such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer
pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as a
reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Assets Forfeiture Fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and
(G), $21,759,000, to be derived from the Department of
Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States; including purchase for
police-type use of not to exceed 2,454 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 1,843 will be for replacement only; and
not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C,
$4,576,730,000; of which not to exceed $65,000,000 for
automated data processing and telecommunications and
technical investigative equipment, and not to exceed
$1,000,000 for undercover operations, shall remain available
until September 30, 2005; of which $490,104,000 shall be for
counterterrorism investigations, foreign counterintelligence,
and other activities related to our national security; of
which not less than $153,812,000 shall only be for Joint
Terrorism Task Forces; and of which not to exceed $10,000,000
is authorized to be made available for making advances for
expenses arising out of contractual or reimbursable
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies
while engaged in cooperative activities related to violent
crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug investigations:
Provided, That not to exceed $250,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, not to exceed 28,378 positions and 26,805
full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the
funds appropriated in this Act for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
foreign terrorist tracking task force
For expenses necessary for the Foreign Terrorist Tracking
Task Force, including salaries and expenses, operations,
equipment, and facilities, $61,597,000.
Construction
For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings
and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law
(including equipment for such buildings); conversion and
extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary
planning and design of projects; $1,242,000, to remain
available until expended.
Drug Enforcement Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 530C; and purchase of not to exceed 982
passenger motor vehicles, of which 886 will be for
replacement only, for police-type use, $1,601,327,000; of
which not to exceed $33,000,000 for permanent change of
station shall remain available until September 30, 2005; of
which not to exceed $1,800,000 for research shall remain
available until expended; of which not to exceed $4,000,000
for purchase of evidence and payments for information, not to
exceed $10,000,000 for contracting for automated data
processing and telecommunications equipment, and not to
exceed $2,000,000 for laboratory equipment, $4,000,000 for
technical equipment, and $2,000,000 for aircraft replacement
retrofit and parts, shall remain available until September
30, 2005; and of which not to exceed $50,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the Drug Enforcement
Administration, not to exceed 8,358 positions and 8,018 full-
time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds
appropriated in this Act for the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Interagency Drug Enforcement
For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation,
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include
inter-governmental agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $556,465,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the
fiscal year shall revert to the Drug Enforcement
Administrator for reallocation among participating
organizations in succeeding fiscal years, subject to the
reprogramming procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, including purchase of not to exceed
822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for
replacement only; not to exceed $18,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; for training of State
and local law enforcement agencies with or without
reimbursement, including training in connection with the
training and acquisition of canines for explosives and fire
accelerants detection; and for provision of laboratory
assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, with
or without reimbursement, $831,199,000, of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of
attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of
which up to $2,000,000 shall be available for the equipping
of any vessel, vehicle, equipment, or aircraft available for
official use by a State or local law enforcement agency if
the conveyance will be used in joint law enforcement
operations with the Bureau and for the payment of overtime
salaries including Social Security and Medicare, travel,
fuel, training, equipment, supplies, and other similar costs
of State and local law enforcement personnel, including sworn
officers and support personnel, that are incurred in joint
operations with the Bureau: Provided, That no funds
appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or
administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or
centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records,
or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of
firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees: Provided
further, That no funds appropriated herein shall be used to
pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any
officer or employee of the United States to implement an
amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or to change the
definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 178.11 or remove
any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it existed on
January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act
upon applications for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided further, That
such funds shall be available to investigate and act upon
applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal
firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18,
United States Code: Provided further, That no funds made
available by this or any other Act may be used to transfer
the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to other agencies
or Departments in fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That no
funds appropriated under this or any other Act may be used to
disclose to the public the contents or any portion thereof of
any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to
section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required
to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of section
923(g) of title 18, United States Code, except that this
provision shall apply to any request for information made by
any person or entity after January 1, 1998: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act
for the enforcement or implementation of section 923(g)(5) of
title 18, United States Code, shall be expended in a manner
that requires any records regarding the acquisition or
disposition of a firearm by a licensee to be submitted to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by the
licensee unless the records are specifically required during
a bona fide criminal investigation to (1) determine the
disposition of one or more firearms which are the subject of,
or attendant to, the investigation, or (2) identify an
individual offender who is the subject or target of the
investigation: Provided further, That no funds made available
by this or any other Act shall be expended to promulgate or
implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any
business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United
States Code: Provided further, That no funds authorized or
made available under this or any other Act may be used to
deny any application for a license under section 923 of title
18, United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a
lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is
otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible
to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction
for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986: Provided further, That no funds under this Act may be
used to electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification
code: Provided further, That subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 28
U.S.C. 530C(b)(2), are amended by inserting ``for the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,'' after
``Marshals Service,'' in each subparagraph.
Federal Prison System
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration, operation,
and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional
institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 838, of which
535 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and
passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical
assistance and advice on corrections related issues to
foreign governments, $4,461,257,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and
Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for
direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief
for inmates of Federal
[[Page H7255]]
penal and correctional institutions: Provided further, That
the Director of the Federal Prison System, where necessary,
may enter into contracts with a fiscal agent/fiscal
intermediary claims processor to determine the amounts
payable to persons who, on behalf of the Federal Prison
System, furnish health services to individuals committed to
the custody of the Federal Prison System: Provided further,
That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain available for
necessary operations until September 30, 2005: Provided
further, That, of the amounts provided for Contract
Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available
until expended to make payments in advance for grants,
contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses
authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980, for the care and security in the
United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided
further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System may
accept donated property and services relating to the
operation of the prison card program from a not-for-profit
entity which has operated such program in the past
notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity
furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison
System relating to the operation of pre-release services,
halfway houses or other custodial facilities.
Buildings and Facilities
For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and
remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and
correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident
thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing,
remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities
at existing penal and correctional institutions, including
all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force
account, $202,840,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to
construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That
labor of United States prisoners may be used for work
performed under this appropriation: Provided further, That
not to exceed 10 percent of the funds appropriated to
``Buildings and Facilities'' in this or any other Act may be
transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison
System, upon notification by the Attorney General to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in compliance with provisions set forth in
section 605 of this Act.
Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated
The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase
(not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries,
Incorporated
Not to exceed $3,429,000 of the funds of the corporation
shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an
accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which such accounting system
requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities
acquired or produced, including selling and shipping
expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition,
construction, operation, maintenance, improvement,
protection, or disposition of facilities and other property
belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.
Office of Justice Programs
Justice Assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Missing Children's
Assistance Act, including salaries and expenses in connection
therewith, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law
108-21), and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, $209,131,000,
to remain available until expended.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994
Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); and
other programs; $1,640,861,000 (including amounts for
administrative costs, which shall be transferred to and
merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' account): Provided,
That all balances under this heading for programs to address
violence against women may be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Violence Against Women Prevention and
Prosecution Programs'': Provided further, That funding
provided under this heading shall remain available until
expended as follows:
(1) $400,000,000 for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants,
pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by the House of
Representatives on February 14, 1995, except that for
purposes of this Act and retroactive to October 1, 2000, Guam
shall be considered as one ``State'' for all purposes under
H.R. 728: Provided, That funding shall be available for the
purposes authorized by part E of title I of the 1968 Act:
Provided further, That no funds provided under this heading
may be used as matching funds for any other Federal grant
program, of which--
(A) $80,000,000 shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs in public
housing facilities and other areas in cooperation with State
and local law enforcement, as authorized by section 401 of
Public Law 104-294 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note): Provided, That
funds may also be used to defray the costs of indemnification
insurance for law enforcement officers;
(B) $20,000,000 shall be available for grants, contracts,
and other assistance to carry out section 102(c) of H.R. 728;
and
(C) $5,000,000 for USA Freedom Corps activities;
(2) $400,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act;
(3) $2,500,000 for the Cooperative Agreement Program for
the improvement of State and local correctional facilities
holding prisoners in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service;
(4) $13,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes, of which--
(A) $8,000,000 shall be available for the Tribal Courts
Initiative; and
(B) $5,000,000 shall be available for demonstration
projects on alcohol and crime in Indian Country;
(5) $615,000,000 for programs authorized by part E of title
I of the 1968 Act, notwithstanding the provisions of section
511 of said Act, of which $115,000,000 shall be for
discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs;
(6) $10,000,000 for victim services programs for victims of
trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law
106-386;
(7) $70,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse
treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by part S of the
1968 Act;
(8) $892,000 for the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient
Alert Program, as authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994
Act;
(9) $55,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by Part EE
of title I of the 1968 Act;
(10) $1,487,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support
Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968
Act;
(11) $1,982,000 for public awareness programs addressing
marketing scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by
section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act;
(12) $10,000,000 for a prescription drug monitoring
program;
(13) $60,000,000 for implementation of prison rape
prevention and prosecution programs; and
(14) $1,000,000 for a State and local law enforcement hate
crimes training and technical assistance program:
Provided further, That funds made available in fiscal year
2004 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 1968 Act may
be obligated for programs to assist States in the litigation
processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions
and for drug testing initiatives: Provided further, That, if
a unit of local government uses any of the funds made
available under this title to increase the number of law
enforcement officers, the unit of local government will
achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers
who perform nonadministrative public safety service.
Weed and Seed Program Fund
For necessary expenses to implement ``Weed and Seed''
program activities, $51,811,000, to remain available until
expended, for inter-governmental agreements, including
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, with State and
local law enforcement agencies, non-profit organizations, and
agencies of local government engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and
Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements
or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of
Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified
by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed''
program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress
through language for other Department of Justice
appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program
activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney
General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed:
Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the
use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in
support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after
the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Community Oriented Policing Services
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (including
administrative costs), $682,993,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds that become available as
a result of deobligations from prior year balances may not be
obligated except in accordance with section 605 of this Act:
Provided further, That section 1703(b) and (c) of the Omnibus
Crime
[[Page H7256]]
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act'') shall
not apply to non-hiring grants made pursuant to part Q of
title I thereof (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.).
Of the amounts provided--
(1) $20,662,000 for community policing training and
technical assistance;
(2) $25,000,000 for the matching grant program for Law
Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to section 2501 of part Y of
the 1968 Act;
(3) $30,000,000 to improve tribal law enforcement including
equipment and training;
(4) $60,000,000 for policing initiatives to combat
methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance
policing initiatives in ``drug hot spots'';
(5) $28,315,000 for Police Corps education and training:
Provided, That the out-year program costs of new recruits
shall be fully funded from funds currently available;
(6) $100,000,000 for a law enforcement technology program;
(7) $56,924,000 for grants to upgrade criminal records, as
authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act of
1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601);
(8) $174,353,000 for a DNA analysis and backlog reduction
formula program, of which--
(A) not less than $35,000,000 shall be for increasing State
and local DNA laboratory capacity; and
(B) $10,000,000 shall be for discretionary research,
demonstration, evaluation, statistics, technical assistance
and training;
(9) $5,000,000 for Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants under part BB of title I of the 1968 Act
(42 U.S.C. 3797j et seq.);
(10) $40,000,000 for the Southwest Border Prosecutor
Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or
municipal governments only for costs associated with the
prosecution of criminal cases declined by local U.S.
Attorneys offices;
(11) $13,504,000 for an offender re-entry program, as
authorized by Public Law 107-273;
(12) $17,000,000 for a police integrity program;
(13) $45,000,000 for Project Safe Neighborhoods to reduce
gun violence, and gang and drug-related crime;
(14) $41,105,000 shall be available to the United States
Marshals Service, of which--
(A) $28,519,000 shall be for the District of Columbia
Superior Court Office; and
(B) $12,586,000 shall be for fugitive apprehension task
forces with State and local law enforcement; and
(15) not to exceed $26,130,000 for program management and
administration.
violence against women prevention and prosecution programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence
against women as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of Child Abuse Act
of 1990 (``the 1990 Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and
Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-21); and the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386);
$387,629,000 (including amounts for administrative costs,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the ``General
Administration'' account), to remain available until
expended.
Of the amount provided--
(1) $11,897,000 for the court appointed special advocate
program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
(2) $2,281,000 for child abuse training programs for
judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by
section 222 of the 1990 Act;
(3) $994,000 for grants for televised testimony, as
authorized by part N of the 1968 Act;
(4) $183,334,000 for grants to combat violence against
women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, of which--
(A) $5,200,000 shall be for the National Institute of
Justice for research and evaluation of violence against
women;
(B) $10,000,000 shall be for the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start Program, as
authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of
1974; and
(C) $15,000,000 shall be for transitional housing
assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking
or sexual assault as authorized by Public Law 108-21;
(5) $64,503,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as
authorized by part U of the 1968 Act;
(6) $39,685,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse
enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295
of the 1994 Act;
(7) $4,957,000 for training programs as authorized by
section 40152 of the 1994 Act, and for related local
demonstration projects;
(8) $2,981,000 for grants to improve the stalking and
domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602
of the 1994 Act;
(9) $9,935,000 to reduce violent crimes against women on
campus, as authorized by section 1108(a) of Public Law 106-
386;
(10) $39,740,000 for legal assistance for victims, as
authorized by section 1201 of Public Law 106-386;
(11) $4,968,000 for enhancing protection for older and
disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault as
authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
(12) $14,903,000 for the safe havens for children pilot
program as authorized by section 1301 of Public Law 106-386;
and
(13) $7,451,000 for education and training to end violence
against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized
by section 1402 of Public Law 106-386.
Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 66, line 4, be considered
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 34, line 21, through page 66, line 4,
is as follows:
Juvenile Justice Programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the Act''), and other juvenile
justice programs, including salaries and expenses in
connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Justice Assistance, $462,282,000, to
remain available until expended, as follows:
(1) $7,000,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as
authorized by section 204 of the Act;
(2) $90,000,000 for State and local programs authorized by
section 221 of the Act, including training and technical
assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the
Federal grants process;
(3) $40,000,000 for juvenile delinquency prevention block
grants, as authorized by section 241 of the Act;
(4) $7,000,000 for research, evaluation, training and
technical assistance, as authorized by sections 251 and 252
of the Act;
(5) $50,000,000 for demonstration projects as authorized by
sections 261 and 262 of the Act;
(6) $92,282,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized
by section 505 of the Act, of which--
(A) $12,500,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth program;
(B) $20,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education
and training program to be coordinated with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and
(C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each
State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary
grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce
State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance
and training;
(7) $25,000,000 for Project Childsafe;
(8) $20,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act as
authorized by Public Law 106-386;
(9) $20,000,000 for Project Sentry to reduce youth gun
violence, and gang and drug-related crime;
(10) $11,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
(11) $100,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grants program as authorized by Public Law 107-273 and Guam
shall be considered a State.
Public Safety Officers Benefits
To remain available until expended, for payments authorized
by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are
necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 100-
690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); $4,000,000, to remain available
until expended for payments as authorized by section 1201(b)
of said Act and $3,500,000 for education assistance, as
authorized by section 1212 of said Act.
General Provisions--Department of Justice
Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 104. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to establish and publicize a program under which
publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which
shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in
[[Page H7257]]
sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code:
Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a
maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal
approval of the President or the Attorney General and such
approval may not be delegated: Provided further, That rewards
made pursuant to section 501 of Public Law 107-56 shall not
be subject to this section.
Sec. 106. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 107. Section 114 of Public Law 107-77 shall remain in
effect during fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 108. Authorities contained in the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
(Public Law 107-273) shall remain in effect until the
effective date of a subsequent Department of Justice
appropriations authorization Act.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2004''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $41,994,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That not less than
$2,000,000 provided under this heading shall be for expenses
authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2451 and 1677b(c).
International Trade Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$57,000,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Operations and Administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans
and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad
for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of
alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction
of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use
abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise
in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official
representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per
vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and
rental of tie lines, $395,123,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $13,000,000 is to be derived from fees to
be retained and used by the International Trade
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided,
That $46,669,000 shall be for Manufacturing and Services;
$38,204,000 shall be for Market Access and Compliance;
$68,160,000 shall be for the Import Administration of which
$3,000,000 is to establish an Office of China Compliance;
$217,040,000 shall be for the United States and Foreign
Commercial Service of which $1,500,000 is for the Advocacy
Center, $2,500,000 is for the Trade Information Center, and
$2,100,000 is for a China and Middle East Business Center;
and $25,050,000 shall be for Executive Direction and
Administration: Provided further, That the provisions of the
first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these
activities without regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and
that for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the
provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961 shall include payment for assessments for
services provided as part of these activities.
Bureau of Industry and Security
Operations and Administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles
for official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use
with special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase
without regard to any price limitation otherwise established
by law, $68,203,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005, of which $7,203,000 shall be for inspections and other
activities related to national security: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further,
That payments and contributions collected and accepted for
materials or services provided as part of such activities may
be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities,
and for providing information to the public with respect to
the export administration and national security activities of
the Department of Commerce and other export control programs
of the United States and other governments.
Economic Development Administration
Economic Development Assistance Programs
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and
for trade adjustment assistance, $288,115,000, to remain
available until expended.
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$30,565,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority Business Development
For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$29,000,000.
Economic and Information Infrastructure
Economic and Statistical Analysis
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $75,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2005.
Bureau of the Census
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $220,908,000.
Periodic Censuses and Programs
For necessary expenses related to the 2010 decennial
census, $260,200,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005: Provided, That, of the total amount available related
to the 2010 decennial census, $112,090,000 is for the Re-
engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only Census,
$64,800,000 is for the American Community Survey, and
$83,310,000 is for the Master Address File/Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER)
system.
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
$180,853,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005,
of which $80,082,000 is for economic statistics programs and
$100,771,000 is for demographic statistics programs:
Provided, That regarding engineering and design of a facility
at the Suitland Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding
the expenditure of funds and project planning, design and
cost decisions shall be provided by the Bureau, in
cooperation with the General Services Administration, to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this or any other Act under the heading ``Bureau
of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs'' shall be used
to fund the construction and tenant build-out costs of a
facility at the Suitland Federal Center.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $14,604,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 1535(d), the Secretary of Commerce shall charge
Federal agencies for costs incurred in spectrum management,
analysis, and operations, and related services and such fees
shall be retained and used as offsetting collections for
costs of such spectrum services, to remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to retain and use as offsetting collections all
funds transferred, or
[[Page H7258]]
previously transferred, from other Government agencies for
all costs incurred in telecommunications research,
engineering, and related activities by the Institute for
Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA, in furtherance of its
assigned functions under this paragraph, and such funds
received from other Government agencies shall remain
available until expended.
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction
For the administration of grants authorized by section 392
of the Communications Act of 1934, $2,538,000, as authorized
by section 391 of the Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding
section 391 of the Act, the prior year unobligated balances
may be made available for grants for projects for which
applications have been submitted and approved during any
fiscal year.
Information Infrastructure Grants
For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, $15,402,000, to remain available until expended
as authorized by section 391 of the Act: Provided, That not
to exceed $3,097,000 shall be available for program
administration and other support activities as authorized by
section 391: Provided further, That, of the funds
appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be available
for telecommunications research activities for projects
related directly to the development of a national information
infrastructure: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the
requirements of sections 392(a) and 392(c) of the Act, these
funds may be used for the planning and construction of
telecommunications networks for the provision of educational,
cultural, health care, public information, public safety, or
other social services: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity that
receives telecommunications services at preferential rates
under section 254(h) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) or
receives assistance under the regional information sharing
systems grant program of the Department of Justice under part
M of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may use funds under a grant
under this heading to cover any costs of the entity that
would otherwise be covered by such preferential rates or such
assistance, as the case may be.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of
suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, $1,138,700,000, to remain
available until expended, which amount shall be derived from
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation:
Provided, That the sum herein appropriated from the general
fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2004, so as to result in a fiscal
year 2004 appropriation from the general fund estimated at
$0: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004, should
the total amount of offsetting fee collections be less than
$1,138,700,000, the total amounts available to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office shall be reduced
accordingly: Provided further, That an additional amount not
to exceed $100,000,000 from fees collected in prior fiscal
years shall be available for obligation in fiscal year 2004,
to remain available until expended: Provided further, That
from amounts provided herein, not to exceed $1,000 shall be
made available in fiscal year 2004 for official reception and
representation expenses.
Science and Technology
Technology Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology Office of Technology Policy, $7,822,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
scientific and technical research and services
For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $357,862,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.
industrial technology services
For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $39,607,000, to remain available until expended.
Construction of Research Facilities
For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and
maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as
authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $62,590,000, to remain
available until expended.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft;
grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities as authorized, $2,180,454,000: Provided, That fees
and donations received by the National Ocean Service for the
management of the national marine sanctuaries may be retained
and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those
activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further,
That, in addition, $79,251,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products
and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided
further, That, of the $2,276,705,000 provided for in direct
obligations under this heading (of which $2,180,454,000 is
appropriated from the General Fund, $79,251,000 is provided
by transfer, and $17,000,000 is derived from deobligations
from prior years), $363,239,000 shall be for the National
Ocean Service, $545,072,000 shall be for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, $306,443,000 shall be for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research, $713,773,000 shall be for the National
Weather Service, $146,334,000 shall be for the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and
$201,844,000 shall be for Program Support: Provided further,
That no general administrative charge shall be applied
against an assigned activity included in this Act and,
further, that any direct administrative expenses applied
against an assigned activity shall be limited to 5 percent of
the funds provided for that assigned activity so that total
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
administrative expenses shall not exceed $243,000,000:
Provided further, That any use of deobligated balances of
funds provided under this heading in previous years shall be
subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act: Provided further, That none of the funds under this
heading are available to alter the existing structure,
organization, function, and funding of the National Marine
Fisheries Service Southwest Region and Fisheries Science
Center and Northwest Region and Fisheries Science Center:
Provided further, That funding provided under this heading
for ocean and coastal observing system grants shall require
an equal match from other non-Federal sources: Provided
further, That, hereafter, the Secretary of Commerce may enter
into cooperative agreements with the Joint and Cooperative
Institutes as designated by the Secretary to use the
personnel, services, or facilities of such organizations for
research, education, training, and outreach.
In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits
Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel
and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act
(10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction
For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital
assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
$794,059,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006,
except for funds appropriated for the National Marine
Fisheries Service Honolulu Laboratory and for the National
Environmental Satellites, Data, and Information Service,
which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
of the amounts provided for the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only
be made available on a dollar for dollar matching basis with
funds provided for the same purpose by the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in
this Act or any other Act under the heading ``National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Procurement,
Acquisition and Construction'' shall be used to fund the
General Services Administration's standard construction and
tenant build-out costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal
Center.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of
Pacific salmon populations, $90,000,000.
fisheries finance program account
Funds provided under this heading for the costs of direct
loans authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided, That these funds are available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $59,000,000 only to finance fishing capacity
reduction programs, individual fishing quotas, reconditioning
of fishing vessels for the purpose of reducing bycatch or
reducing capacity in an overfished or over-capitalized
fishery, and the purchase of assets sold at foreclosure
instituted by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available under this heading may
be used for direct loans for any new fishing vessel that will
increase the harvesting capacity in any United States
fishery.
Departmental Management
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the departmental management of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $44,662,000:
Provided, That not to exceed 11 full-time equivalents and
$1,621,000 shall be expended for the legislative affairs
function of the Department.
[[Page H7259]]
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $22,000,000.
General Provisions--Department of Commerce
Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that
such payments are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for
salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and
1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms
or allowances therefore, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902).
Sec. 203. Hereafter, none of the funds made available by
this or any other Act for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration may be used to support the
hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and activities that are
under the control of the United States Air Force or the
United States Air Force Reserve.
Sec. 204. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance
of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset
(including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically
provided for in this or any other Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Sec. 205. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this title resulting from personnel actions
taken in response to funding reductions included in this
title or from actions taken for the care and protection of
loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within
the total budgetary resources available to such department or
agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry
out this section is provided in addition to authorities
included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of
funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 206. The Secretary of Commerce may use the Commerce
franchise fund for expenses and equipment necessary for the
maintenance and operation of such administrative services as
the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously
as central services, pursuant to section 403 of Public Law
103-356: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other
assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such
fund, either on hand or on order, less the related
liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations
made for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to
capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall
be paid in advance from funds available to the Department of
Commerce and other Federal agencies for which such
centralized services are performed, at rates which will
return in full all expenses of operation, including accrued
leave, depreciation of fund plant and equipment, amortization
of automated data processing (ADP) software and systems
(either acquired or donated), and an amount necessary to
maintain a reasonable operating reserve, as determined by the
Secretary: Provided further, That such fund shall provide
services on a competitive basis: Provided further, That an
amount not to exceed 4 percent of the total annual income to
such fund may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 2004
and each fiscal year thereafter, to remain available until
expended, to be used for the acquisition of capital
equipment, and for the improvement and implementation of
department financial management, ADP, and other support
systems: Provided further, That such amounts retained in the
fund for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter
shall be available for obligation and expenditure only in
accordance with section 605 of this Act: Provided further,
That no later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year,
amounts in excess of this reserve limitation shall be
deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury: Provided
further, That such franchise fund pilot program shall
terminate pursuant to section 403(f) of Public Law 103-356.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004''.
TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme
Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and
grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance,
and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to
exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate
Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice
may approve, $55,360,000.
Care of the Building and Grounds
For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the
Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon
the Architect as authorized by law, $10,591,000, which shall
remain available until expended.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers
and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as
authorized by law, $20,665,000.
United States Court of International Trade
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries
of the officers and employees of the court, services, and
necessary expenses of the court, as authorized by law,
$14,068,000.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Salaries and Expenses
For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise
specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the
courts, as authorized by law, $4,004,176,000 (including the
purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed
$27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space
alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related
to new space alteration and construction projects.
In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of
Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed
$3,293,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
Defender Services
For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community
Defender organizations; the compensation and reimbursement of
expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under
the Criminal Justice Act of 1964; the compensation and
reimbursement of expenses of persons furnishing
investigative, expert and other services under the Criminal
Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)); the compensation
(in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and
reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist
the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived
representation by counsel; the compensation and reimbursement
of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of
financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in
connection with transfers from the United States to foreign
countries with which the United States has a treaty for the
execution of penal sentences; the compensation of attorneys
appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for the
protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1875(d); and for necessary training and general
administrative expenses, $613,948,000, to remain available
until expended.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of
commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to
rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28
U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)), $53,181,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of
land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
Court Security
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
incident to providing protective guard services for United
States courthouses and the procurement, installation, and
maintenance of security equipment for United States
courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court
operations, including building ingress-egress control,
inspection of mail and packages, directed security patrols,
and other similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of
the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public
Law 100-702), $288,941,000, of which not to exceed
$10,000,000 shall remain available until expended, to be
expended directly or transferred to the United States
Marshals Service, which shall be responsible for
administering the Judicial Facility Security Program
consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts and the Attorney General.
[[Page H7260]]
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor
vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and
rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $66,968,000,
of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Federal Judicial Center
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as
authorized by Public Law 90-219, $21,440,000; of which
$1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2005,
to provide education and training to Federal court personnel;
and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Judicial Retirement Funds
Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds
For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $25,700,000; to the Judicial
Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c),
$700,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims
Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l),
$2,600,000.
United States Sentencing Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code,
$12,746,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for
official reception and representation expenses.
General Provisions--The Judiciary
Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this
title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but
no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and
``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', shall be
increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers:
Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts,
courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses
of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided,
That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall
be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of
the Judicial Conference.
Sec. 304. (a) The Supreme Court shall establish a pilot
program under which the Court may repay (by direct payment on
behalf of the employee) any student loan (up to $6,000 per
year) previously taken out by an employee serving as a full-
time judicial law clerk for the Court.
(b) The Court shall promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out such a program and notify the
Committees on Appropriations of the regulations prior to
implementing the pilot program.
This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations
Act, 2004''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order against provisions in that
portion of the bill?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of
order, on page 47.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman make a point of order?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve points of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve points of order.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Can I strike the last word?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman were to offer a pro forma amendment,
then the point of order would come too late.
Members are advised that any points of order in this portion of the
bill which we are discussing must be enacted prior to any amendments
being offered. Therefore, if the point of order is to be made, it must
be made now.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any
points of order in this section.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, two sections of this, on
page 47 and page 55, lines 19 through 23, there are two sections here
that are basically legislating on an appropriations bill over which our
committees has jurisdiction. We have discussed these sections with the
gentleman from Virginia and have come to an agreement that we will not
at this point exercise a point of order, but want to work with the
committee in the future as they draft these bills to work with our
committee so that we can craft appropriate language to meet our mutual
goals.
Is the gentleman in agreement?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely am. These
are provisions that have been carried before. The gentleman is the new
chairman of that committee. Before we do that next year, we will sit
down with the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing these to our
attention and for not striking.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by
section 801 of the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international
organizations in which the United States participates
pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and
consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms
control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as
authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of
general administration, $3,453,260,000: Provided, That not to
exceed 69 permanent positions and $7,311,000 shall be
expended for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs: Provided
further, That, of the amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and
merged with, funds in the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service'' appropriations account, to be available
only for emergency evacuations and terrorism rewards:
Provided further, That, of the amount made available under
this heading, $301,563,000 shall be available only for public
diplomacy international information programs: Provided
further, That, of the amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $48,000,000 shall be available for the
Bureau of International Organization Affairs: Provided
further, That of the amount made available under this
heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for the
establishment and operations of an Office on Right-Sizing the
United States Government Overseas Presence: Provided further,
That funds available under this heading may be available for
a United States Government interagency task force to examine,
coordinate and oversee United States participation in the
United Nations headquarters renovation project: Provided
further, That no funds may be obligated or expended for
processing licenses for the export of satellites of United
States origin (including commercial satellites and satellite
components) to the People's Republic of China unless, at
least 15 days in advance, the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified of
such proposed action.
In addition, not to exceed $1,371,000 shall be derived from
fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use
of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in
addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000,
to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to
be used for the purposes set out in that section; in
addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and
publication programs and from fees from educational advising
and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in
addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from
reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House
facilities.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
$646,701,000, to remain available until expended.
capital investment fund
For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
$142,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading:
Provided further, That, of the funds made available under
this heading, $84,000,000 is for worldwide infrastructure
replacement only, which amount shall not become available for
obligation until September 15, 2004.
[[Page H7261]]
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$29,777,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to
post inspections.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized, $345,346,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended, may be credited to this
appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in
connection with English teaching, educational advising and
counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as
authorized.
Representation Allowances
For representation allowances as authorized, $9,000,000.
Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials
For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services, as authorized, $10,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-303), preserving,
maintaining, repairing, and planning for buildings that are
owned or directly leased by the Department of State,
renovating, in addition to funds otherwise available, the
Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the Diplomatic
Security Construction Program as authorized, $532,935,000, to
remain available until expended as authorized, of which not
to exceed $15,000 may be used for domestic and overseas
representation as authorized: Provided, That none of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for
acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or generators for
other departments and agencies.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
acquisition, and construction as authorized, $861,400,000, to
remain available until expended.
emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service
For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service, $1,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.
Repatriation Loans Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, $612,000, as authorized:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $607,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account
under Administration of Foreign Affairs.
Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan
For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act (Public Law 96-8), $18,782,000.
Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund
For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $134,979,000.
International Organizations
contributions to international organizations
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, $1,010,463,000: Provided, That
the Secretary of State shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations at least 15 days in advance (or in an
emergency, as far in advance as is practicable) of any United
Nations action to increase funding for any United Nations
program without identifying an offsetting decrease elsewhere
in the United Nations budget and cause the United Nations to
exceed the adopted budget for the biennium 2002-2003 of
$2,891,000,000: Provided further, That any payment of
arrearages under this title shall be directed toward special
activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States
and the respective international organization: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution
to an international organization for the United States share
of interest costs made known to the United States Government
by such organization for loans incurred on or after October
1, 1984, through external borrowings: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this paragraph may be obligated and
expended to pay the full United States assessment to the
civil budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
contributions for international peacekeeping activities
For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, $550,200,000: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for
any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission
unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the new or
expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or
in an emergency as far in advance as is practicable) (1) the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and other appropriate committees of the
Congress are notified of the estimated cost and length of the
mission, the vital national interest that will be served, and
the planned exit strategy; and (2) a reprogramming of funds
pursuant to section 605 of this Act is submitted, and the
procedures therein followed, setting forth the source of
funds that will be used to pay for the cost of the new or
expanded mission: Provided further, That funds shall be
available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a certification
by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees of
the Congress that American manufacturers and suppliers are
being given opportunities to provide equipment, services, and
material for United Nations peacekeeping activities equal to
those being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading are available to pay the United States share of
the cost of court monitoring that is part of any United
Nations peacekeeping mission.
International Commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet
obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or
specific Acts of Congress, as follows:
international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico
For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United
States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for
representation; as follows:
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
$25,668,000.
Construction
For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, $5,500,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.
American Sections, International Commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $8,944,000,
of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for
representation expenses incurred by the International Joint
Commission.
International Fisheries Commissions
For necessary expenses for international fisheries
commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by
law, $16,989,000: Provided, That the United States' share of
such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.
Other
payment to the asia foundation
For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the
Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $10,376,000, to remain
available until expended, as authorized.
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program
For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 2004, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.
israeli arab scholarship program
For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2004, to remain
available until expended.
national endowment for democracy
For grants made by the Department of State to the National
Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National
Endowment for Democracy Act, $42,000,000 to remain available
until expended.
RELATED AGENCY
Broadcasting Board of Governors
international broadcasting operations
For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, as authorized, to carry out international
communication activities, including the purchase,
installation, rent, and improvement of facilities for radio
and television transmission
[[Page H7262]]
and reception to Cuba, $552,105,000, of which not to exceed
$16,000 may be used for official receptions within the United
States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be used for
representation abroad as authorized, and not to exceed
$39,000 may be used for official reception and representation
expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and revenue from
business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in receipts from
cooperating international organizations, and not to exceed
$1,000,000 in receipts from privatization efforts of the
Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau,
to remain available until expended for carrying out
authorized purposes.
broadcasting capital improvements
For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase
and installation of necessary equipment for radio and
television transmission and reception as authorized,
$11,395,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized.
General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency
Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and for hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to provide equipment, technical support,
consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2004''.
TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES
Antitrust Modernization Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Antitrust Modernization
Commission, as authorized by Public Law 107-273, $1,499,000,
to remain available until expended.
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
salaries and expenses
For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad, $499,000, as authorized by section
1303 of Public Law 99-83.
Commission on Civil Rights
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,096,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ
consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in
excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the
Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each
Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse
Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the
exception of the chairperson, who is permitted 125 billable
days.
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304,
$1,615,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized,
$1,800,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of
official representation, to remain available until expended.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b);
non-monetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed
$33,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement
agencies for services to the Commission pursuant to title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections 6 and 14 of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
$328,400,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds.
Federal Communications Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not
to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed
$500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to
buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles;
special counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, $278,958,000: Provided, That $269,000,000 of offsetting
collections shall be assessed and collected pursuant to
section 9 of title I of the Communications Act of 1934, shall
be retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2004 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004
appropriation estimated at $9,958,000: Provided further, That
any offsetting collections received in excess of $269,000,000
in fiscal year 2004 shall remain available until expended,
but shall not be available for obligation until October 1,
2004: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 1353 of
title 31, United States Code, no Commissioner or employee of
the Federal Communications Commission may accept, nor may the
Commission accept, payment or reimbursement from a non-
Federal entity for travel, subsistence, or related expenses
for the purpose of enabling a Commissioner or employee to
attend and participate in a convention, conference, or
meeting when the entity offering payment or reimbursement is
a person or corporation subject to regulation by the
Commission, or represents a person or corporation subject to
regulation by the Commission, unless the person or
corporation is an organization exempt from taxation pursuant
to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
{time} 1300
Point of Order
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, on page 81, ``Federal Communications
Commission, salaries and expenses,'' I believe that it is an
authorization on an appropriations bill. It is not authorized.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman identifying the last proviso of the
paragraph?
Mr. UPTON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there discussion on the point of order?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there was an analysis of the FCC's travel
paid for by non-Federal sources. They found that agency officials took
more than 2,500 industry-sponsored trips between May of 1995 and
February of 2003, costing $2.8 million. Each of the current
commissioners took trips. One commissioner took 44 trips during that
time frame, including trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, and London.
When the issue came out, a member of the FCC staff said that it was
because the Committee on Appropriations did not fund their travel. That
is not accurate. And as a result of that, we wanted to do this.
One commissioner, who has only been a commissioner since July of
2001, took 12 trips valued at over $14,000. One career employee took
104 trips valued at $150,000, including to France, Japan, Singapore,
the United Kingdom, and Sweden. That means the regulatees are paying
for the trips of the regulator.
So the reason we are putting this in, I would say to my friend from
Michigan, was that when this study came out, the FCC said the reason
they had to do this was because they were not being adequately funded,
which was not accurate and, therefore, they are adequately funded to
travel. I think from a public interest point of view, to allow one
person to take 104 trips valued at almost $150,000 to France, Japan,
Singapore, the United Kingdom,
[[Page H7263]]
and Sweden was why the subcommittee did that from a public policy point
of view.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia may not yield in the debate
on the point of order.
The Chair will hear each Member individually on the point of order.
Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard. Let me
just say this also falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Reform. I was coming over to also offer our objection to
this section because this was put in without consultation with our
committee, and this is under our jurisdiction.
However, after listening to the gentleman from Virginia explain the
rationale put forward by both the Federal Communications Commission in
defending the policy and looking at the wide array of special interest
trips that have been paid for by special interests to employees of the
FCC, this is probably an appropriate vehicle to try to stop that
process and try to raise the regulatory regime there to make it freer
from interest group influence.
Obviously, if somebody goes on a paid-for trip, is put up in a hotel,
gets their golf game paid for, and it is paid for by an interest group
that is regulated by the FCC, we should stop it.
So we are not going to exercise a motion to strike on this. I agree
with the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate him bringing this
forward. I hope he will work with us during the next year as we craft
these together so that we can keep these jurisdictionally a little bit
clearer.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard on
his point of order?
Mr. UPTON. No. I think enough has been said.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Are there amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$183,041,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for use to
contract with a person or persons for collection services in
accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $112,000,000 of offsetting collections derived
from fees collected for premerger notification filings under
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15
U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection, shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation: Provided further, That $20,100,000 in
offsetting collections derived from fees sufficient to
implement and enforce the Telemarketing Sales Rule,
promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), shall be credited to
this account, and be retained and used for necessary expenses
in this appropriation: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2004,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation
from the general fund estimated at not more than $50,941,000:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available to
the Federal Trade Commission shall be available for
obligation for expenses authorized by section 151 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-242; 105 Stat. 2282-2285): Provided further,
That, notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United States
Code, no Commissioner or employee of the Federal Trade
Commission may accept, nor may the Commission accept, payment
or reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel,
subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling
a Commissioner or employee to attend and participate in a
convention, conference, or meeting when the entity offering
payment or reimbursement is a person or corporation subject
to regulation by the Commission, or represents a person or
corporation subject to regulation by the Commission, unless
the person or corporation is an organization exempt from
taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
Point of Order
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the final proviso under the heading
``Federal Trade Commission salaries and expenses,'' page 84, line 15
through 85, line 3 of the bill violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the
rules of the House prohibiting legislation on appropriations bills.
This provision bans commissioners and employees of the FTC to accept
payment or reimbursement of a non-Federal entity for travel and related
expenses, and would apply towards travel to a convention, conference,
or meeting. The only exception provided for in the bill is if the
person or corporation paying is an organization exempt from taxation
pursuant to 501(c)(3) of the IRS code of 1986.
In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the rules of
the House, because it changes current law, and I insist on my point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Are there amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk
will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Legal Services Corporation
payment to the legal services corporation
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
$338,848,000, of which $319,548,000 is for basic field
programs and required independent audits; $2,600,000 is for
the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $13,300,000 is for management and administration;
and $3,400,000 is for client self-help and information
technology.
Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation
None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Marine Mammal Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $1,856,000.
National Veterans Business Development Corporation
For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business
Development Corporation as authorized under section 33(a) of
the Small Business Act, $2,000,000.
Securities and Exchange Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
$841,500,000; of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used
toward funding a permanent secretariat for the International
Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to
exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for
consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with
foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members
of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff
to exchange views concerning developments relating to
securities matters, development and implementation of
cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and
provision of technical assistance for the development of
foreign securities markets, such expenses to include
necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the
expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in
attendance at such consultations and meetings including (1)
such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such
attendance; (2) any travel and transportation to or from such
meetings; and (3) any other related lodging or subsistence:
Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections 6(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)),
and 13(e), 14(g) and 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(e), 78n(g), and 78ee), shall be credited
to this account as offsetting collections:
[[Page H7264]]
Provided further, That not to exceed $738,500,000 of such
offsetting collections shall be available until expended for
necessary expenses of this account: Provided further, That
$103,000,000 shall be derived from prior year unobligated
balances from funds previously appropriated to the Securities
and Exchange Commission: Provided further, That the total
amount appropriated under this heading from the general fund
for fiscal year 2004 shall be reduced as such offsetting fees
are received so as to result in a final total fiscal year
2004 appropriation from the general fund estimated at not
more than $0: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
1353 of title 31, United States Code, no Commissioner or
employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission may
accept, nor may the Commission accept, payment or
reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel,
subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling
a Commissioner or employee to attend and participate in a
convention, conference, or meeting when the entity offering
payment or reimbursement is a person or corporation subject
to regulation by the Commission, or represents a person or
corporation subject to regulation by the Commission, unless
the person or corporation is an organization exempt from
taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
Small Business Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
105-135, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$326,592,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by
the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing
activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be
credited to this account, to be available for carrying out
these purposes without further appropriations.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $13,000,000.
Business Loans Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, $1,910,000, to be available
until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans,
$84,805,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which
$45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2005:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2004 commitments to guarantee loans under
section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958,
shall not exceed $4,500,000,000: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2004 commitments for general business
loans authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act, shall not exceed $10,000,000,000 without prior
notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and Senate in accordance with section 605
of this Act: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004
commitments to guarantee loans for debentures and
participating securities under section 303(b) of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, shall not exceed the levels
established by section 20(i)(1)(C) of the Small Business Act:
Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004 guarantees of
trust certificates authorized by section 5(g) of the Small
Business Act shall not exceed a principal amount of
$10,000,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $129,000,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.
Disaster Loans Program Account
For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, $72,665,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $117,585,000, which may be transferred
to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses,
of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of
the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of
disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office
of Inspector General; of which $108,000,000 is for direct
administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry
out the direct loan program; and of which $9,085,000 is for
indirect administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount
in excess of $9,085,000 to be transferred to and merged with
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Administrative Provision--Small Business Administration
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
State Justice Institute
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572), $3,000,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my good friend.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Again, section 603 puts a limitation on 5 United States Code
section 3109 and restricts the use of temporary outside consultants and
experts by the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State to contracts
that are a matter of public record.
Because of exceptions to this section, it does not significantly
restrict these outside consultants. But this again falls under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. We have consulted
with the chairman on this. He feels very strongly about this issue. We
will not raise a point of order on this, but hope that in the future we
can work together on these sections, exercising our joint jurisdictions
for the public benefit.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will do that, I can
assure the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 603?
{time} 1315
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo)
about an amendment that we are prepared, when we go to conference, to
make sure it is not in the bill, which is what he desired. Since his
time has passed, and in fairness to others who missed that time, rather
than going back, and there may be an objection, I just want to assure
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that what he is offering,
working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), we will accept
that amendment and strike it when we go to conference, in fairness to
the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Just to identify the amendment, it would be the amendment that occurs
on .051, so the Clerk would know that to which we refer, dealing with
the Small Business Administration Business Loan Program Account. And I
would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for making sure that
this provision would go into the conference report.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I will do that and work with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and in order to protect the
gentleman's interests, we will do that.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, we would agree with the chairman and be
committed to doing that.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances
[[Page H7265]]
other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be
affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2004, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2004, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of
both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. I want to thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his staff for their efforts. I
know this was a difficult bill to reconcile.
As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and
Standards of the Committee on Science, my subcommittee authorizes and
oversees more than 70 percent of the Department of Commerce's budget
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, known as
NOAA, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, known as
NIST. While the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) did the very
best that he could for these agencies, I do have serious concerns,
especially about funding for NIST laboratories. Much of the technology
and standards that we use day to day comes directly from research by
scientists at NIST. The work at the institute is vital to our efforts
on cyber-security, building safety, voting standards and nano-
technology to name just a few.
These laboratories are home to some of the Nation's best and most
gifted scientists, including two Nobel Laureates. While the funding
level for their laboratories is $800,000 more than last year, NIST
needs about $3 million just to cover the 4.1 percent mandatory cost-of-
living adjustments, leaving about a $2 million shortfall. This
shortfall could result in about 50 scientists being let go. We cannot
afford to lose their expertise and the vital work they do every day.
I pledge to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) as
the bill moves forward to help find the resources to cover this
shortfall in the NIST laboratory account.
Regarding NOAA, I am pleased that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) funded many of the programs that are important to the Committee
on Science, such as weather satellites, climate change research and
especially funding to upgrade the NOAA weather system to be a fully
automated, all-hazard warning system, not just for weather emergencies,
but for chemical spills and even terrorist attacks. This warning system
truly helps to save lives every day. Those who have these radios can
receive alerts 24 hours a day even when the radio is turned off or when
people are asleep.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his
staff for working with me and the Committee on Science on these issues
and I urge passage of this important bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 605?
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77,
noes 335, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 402]
AYES--77
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Ballance
Bell
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Filner
Ford
Gordon
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Majette
Maloney
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Pelosi
Ross
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Sherman
Solis
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
NOES--335
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
[[Page H7266]]
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Andrews
Baird
Ballenger
Berkley
Blunt
Conyers
DeLay
Dunn
Ferguson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hensarling
Hunter
Hyde
Jefferson
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Nussle
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1343
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. SOUDER, OSBORNE and EMANUEL, Mrs. DAVIS of
California, Mr. OLVER and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 402, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 605?
If not, the Clerk will read.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The motion to strike the last word is not
in order from the gentleman from Vermont.
If there are no further amendments to Section 605, the Clerk will
read.
{time} 1345
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule of the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) cannot strike the requisite number
of words or any number of words. That privilege is accorded only to the
subcommittee chairman and the ranking minority member.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes
to address the House.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend.
First, I want to apologize to my friends for forcing them to vote. I
have never done this before. It is not my style.
I had an amendment at the desk dealing with an issue of deep concern
to tens of millions of Americans and, I think, a majority of the
Members of this body, and that is to make an important change to the
USA PATRIOT Act so that the FBI is not given carte blanche to go into
our libraries or our book stores with no probable cause.
Now, I understand that there are Members who may disagree with that
notion. I would tell my colleagues that we have 129 cosponsors,
conservatives, liberals, progressives, and the support of the American
Library Association, the American Book Sellers Association. What is
disturbing me very much is the possibility that this important issue,
and both sides of the issue, will not be allowed to be debated this
afternoon in this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I brought forth an amendment which is at the desk. We
needed to make, upon advice from the Parliamentarian, some minor
modification. I asked the chairman of the committee to give us
unanimous consent to make a minor modification so that we could debate
both sides of this issue, one of the most important civil liberties
problems facing the United States of America, and the chairman refused
that courtesy.
So let me be very clear. The American people have a right to read
without the FBI looking over their shoulder. The American people have a
right to have that issue debated on the floor, and I intend, with my
colleagues, to do everything I can to make certain that that occurs.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with everything the
gentleman from Vermont said. I support what he is trying to do about
the PATRIOT Act.
I do not very often get up to complain about procedure here, but I
want to just express my frustration in being a member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee. I had an amendment
that I was going to introduce. As of 8 p.m. last night, we did not see
a bill, so there was no way we could draft the amendment. And then this
morning, with the UC agreed to, it effectively cut out members of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce that had a bill that deals with our
committee that had an amendment.
I just find it very, very frustrating that this UC was done, and had
I been on the floor I would have objected.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Anybody who knows me knows that I am not interested in promoting the
Republican agenda. I think that is a safe assumption on both sides of
the aisle. But I want to say that I want to defend the subcommittee
chairman in this instance.
What happened today is that the schedule for these bills was changed
suddenly, with the support of both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate
the fact that the change was made. I think it was helpful. So this bill
was brought up instead of the Foreign Operations bill. That meant that
for us to proceed, we needed to have a unanimous consent agreement on
the scope of amendments that would be considered by the House so that
Members would have some idea of what the schedule would be.
So what happened is that our staff, understanding what we were trying
to do, put together their understandings of what the amendments were,
and that was included in the UC agreement.
The gentleman indicated that he had an amendment which is not in
order under the rules and needed to be changed somewhat. My
understanding is that he asked the gentleman from Virginia to agree to
a unanimous consent request. The gentleman from Virginia, in essence,
said I cannot do that for you without doing it for other people because
then we unravel the whole UC agreement. I think the gentleman from
Virginia, under the circumstances, was correct.
Now, I happen to support the content of the Sanders amendment, but I
have stood on this floor and I have stood in the whip's meeting, and I
have stood in the Democratic Caucus, and I have said to people time and
time again, if you want us to protect your amendments, please at least
give us adequate notice so that we can try to find ways to do that.
We cannot anticipate, Mr. Chairman. We cannot anticipate all of the
amendments that Members want to offer if we have not been given enough
lead time ourselves so we can work with those Members.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. WOLF. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Even when we do get notice, sometimes we screw up, and we may have
screwed up in a couple of instances today. But all I can say to each
and every Member is, we try to cooperate
[[Page H7267]]
on both sides of the aisle in protecting Members.
We protected three amendments from this side of the aisle today, with
which I fundamentally disagree, and there are a number of other
amendments that I do not think should be here either; but we put them
all in because that is what we thought the universe was.
With respect to the Sanders amendment, all I can say to the gentleman
is, if the gentleman had come to the committee and given us enough time
to work with him, we probably could have worked this out. But I fully
understand why the gentleman from Virginia thinks that he had to
object. He is trying to be fair to both sides, and I think the
gentleman owes us notice if he expects us to try to protect his
amendments.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, other Members have been
in this situation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) missed
the opportunity and could not offer an amendment. The gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) missed the opportunity and could not offer an
amendment, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). And I
think there were several over on that side. And once you have told them
that they have missed their opportunity, to do this now, in essence, I
would have to go back.
Also, there are a large number of other amendments that are subject
to a point of order.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), what I would say with regard to his asking us to give
notice, I did not have warning. I turned on the television and found
this bill on the floor of the House. Nobody gave us warning this bill
was coming to the floor of the House.
Second of all, this is a legislative body. I know the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and if other people have missed
their amendments, presumably because this bill has moved so fast, maybe
we should give them a chance to have their amendments discussed and
debated. That is what we are supposed to do.
This is an enormously important issue. Let us have that debate. Let
us have those votes.
But I have to tell my colleagues that on an issue of this importance,
I am going to be fighting for it, and I am not going to give up. We are
going to have a vote on this.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
For my part, I would like to comment on what the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. We take our responsibilities seriously. We
have a chairman, we have a ranking member of a subcommittee, and we
have a chairman and a ranking member of the full committee. Our intent
at all times is to look out for our side, for our needs for the
American people, and for the committee package and product in general.
We run into situations like we had today where the schedule was
changed, where time ran against us, and we try to do the best possible
work that we can do. But I think it would be unfair and perhaps
improper to suggest that everyone somehow was involved in trying to
keep one amendment or one change or one person from speaking, because
that is not true and that is not the case.
What we have here today is the fact that we have a bill that deals
with a lot of issues that we need to get out of the House. We have a
bill that has a time in terms of making sure that these issues are
spoken about prior to the August recess, so we can send the proper
message to the State Department and the Justice Department and the
embassy security people and the FBI and DEA and all the other people
that we deal with. We are trying to accommodate everyone.
Members have to understand that there is one request that I make,
and, listen, I get as angry as everybody else about things that happen
around here, but one request, and that is, as the ranking member of a
subcommittee, and my colleagues know that I am working on a bill for
the last 6, 7, 8, 9 months, and this is from the beginning of the
session, it is not too much to ask that 2 or 3 days before today to let
me know what is going on so I can play my role in being protective, not
giving me a general idea, but give me some specifics as to where we are
going.
We have a unanimous consent statement and we have to live by it. But,
please, let us do one thing, and this is where I join the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) strongly today. The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and nothing he does is done improperly, and I
want to make that clear.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Vermont
indicated that he turned on the television set and discovered the
schedule had been changed. I discovered that the schedule had been
changed in the middle of the rule vote just minutes before the change
was made. The clock runs as fast for managers of the bill on both sides
of the aisle as it runs for any other Member.
So what we tried to do was to take the specific amendments that we
knew of and tried to protect them. I know of several other instances in
which general amendments had been described to me, but about which I
knew nothing in terms of specific content.
We cannot protect concepts; we have to know what the specific
amendments are. And that is why I repeat, if Members want us to protect
their rights, and we have an obligation to protect their rights, they
owe us the consideration of talking to us enough ahead of time so that
when the schedule changes, nobody gets trapped. We cannot help if we do
not know in time to help.
There are concurrent responsibilities. I think the Committee on
Appropriations on both sides of the aisle meets those responsibilities
pretty doggone well. I think we try to protect the interests of Members
pretty doggone well. We need more of your help than we are getting
sometimes if we are going to do that. That is all I want to ask.
If you want an amendment protected, you cannot come up to us 5
minutes before the bill is going to come up on the floor and say, ``I
have an amendment, how about it?'' It has to be checked out, it has to
be staffed out, and it has to be checked with the Parliamentarian.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just add to the
statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this staff that
we see around us, and this is not buttering anybody up, works 24-7,
especially during the appropriations period, which for us starts in
January with over 20-odd hearings. All I am asking as a ranking member,
for both sides, is to give us the specifics a few days before. That is
what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for and that is all
that we need so that we can be supportive to Members' needs.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe venal intent on the part
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or the chairman. This was
switched at the last moment.
But given the idea that a UC is supposed to be something that is done
by a consensus, and it is clear there were Members on that side that
were shut out, Members on this side, including myself, and the
gentleman from Vermont wants to make a technical correction, if the
true intent was to create a consensus decision on limiting time,
something that I support, perhaps the best way to do this is to do
this: Now that everyone is on notice, have the committee rise, in the
Committee of the Whole, and simply do a new UC.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. We have an agreement
on the floor, and we should live with that agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency
repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
[[Page H7268]]
Administration in shipyards located outside of the United
States.
{time} 1400
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 319, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 403]
AYES--84
Abercrombie
Baird
Ballance
Bell
Berry
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Gordon
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Maloney
McIntyre
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Paul
Pelosi
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
NOES--319
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Isakson
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Ballenger
Berkley
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Conyers
Davis, Jo Ann
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Fattah
Ferguson
Gephardt
Hensarling
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Kaptur
Kirk
Lipinski
Manzullo
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Moran (VA)
Norwood
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Scott (VA)
Tancredo
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1424
Mr. JOHN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HONDA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 605?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Point of Order
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against section 607 (a) and (b) on the grounds that this section
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. And
it is therefore legislation included in a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The provision proposes to state a legislative position of the House
and includes language imparting direction.
As such, the provision constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is
stricken from the bill.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
The Chair, in careful counting, counts 101 Members. A quorum is
present.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I request a division of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his request for a recorded
vote at this point?
Mr. KUCINICH. No.
[[Page H7269]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 75,
noes 307, not voting 52, as follows:
[Roll No. 404]
AYES--75
Ackerman
Baird
Ballance
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clyburn
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Feeney
Filner
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Paul
Pelosi
Rangel
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
NOES--307
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--52
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Berkley
Bishop (UT)
Boucher
Carson (OK)
Clay
Conyers
Cubin
Delahunt
Fattah
Ferguson
Ford
Fossella
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gibbons
Hensarling
Hunter
Hyde
Janklow
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kingston
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Ney
Nussle
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Reyes
Rogers (KY)
Royce
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Souder
Tancredo
Velazquez
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1450
Mrs. CAPITO, Ms. HART, and Mr. GERLACH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues are aware, I had an
amendment that would have been considered today that I am also offering
today as freestanding legislation regarding the United Nations
Reassessment Act of 2003, which would call for a conclusion of
Congress, a sense of Congress, that the representative of the United
States to the U.N. would seek an agreement to lower the assessment
level of the United States for the regular budget of the United Nations
when the U.N. Committee on Contributions considers the scale of
assessments for member nations for the period 2004 through 2006.
Many Americans may not be aware, Mr. Chairman, that the United
States' today's current percentage assessment to the United Nations'
regular budget contribution spans fully 22 percent of the overall fund.
Germany, another member of the Security Council, pays 9.8 percent;
France, 6.5 percent; and China, just 1.5 percent of the regular budget
contributions.
As we look at the extraordinary percentage that American taxpayers
pay in the regular budget contributions of the U.N., I think it is
important that we reflect on the history of recent events and that we
think carefully about the months immediately preceding Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Some, even on the floor of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, have said that
during that period of time the President failed to lead America. They
have said that diplomacy failed. But I, and I believe many millions of
Americans, Mr. Chairman, believe that in fact the U.N. failed at that
critical moment in history, not so much to take the will of the
American people seriously, as to take itself seriously. There are 16
separate resolutions of the United Nations, over a period of a decade,
challenging and cajoling and urging and attempting to enforce the
unanimous decisions of the U.N. Security Council against the nation of
Iraq; and again and again and again, the United Nations failed to take
itself seriously.
And then, last fall, the Security Council, including Germany and
France and Russia, unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 1441, which
required that Iraq immediately disclose the possession of all weapons
of mass destruction and armaments in violation of previous resolutions;
also, that Iraq would not only disclose those armaments, Mr. Chairman,
but would submit to the destruction of those armaments, or it would
face what were described as ``serious consequences.''
When history beckoned, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. failed. And as a
result, the United States of America was required to lead a coalition
of the willing to depose this tyrant, the mass graves which in Iraq
speak volumes about the rightness of our cause.
President Kennedy, in referring to the United Nations as our last
best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the
instruments of peace, challenged America in his first inaugural address
to pledge our support to prevent the United Nations from ``becoming
merely a forum for invective.''
As I pursue this legislation today, apart from my amendment, I want
to assure my colleagues that it will be my aim not that we would
abandon the United Nations, but that we would choose the opportunity on
this day and future days to send a message by sending less American
taxpayer dollars to
[[Page H7270]]
the United Nations; to send a message that we expect more of the United
Nations; to truly make it a place that is the last best hope for
mankind and not, as President Kennedy so prophetically stated, a forum
for invective against our people and our intentions as we strive to
confront tyranny in the world.
I thank the chairman for yielding and allowing me to comment on the
United Nations Reassessment Act, and I look very much forward to
working with the committee and my colleagues as we reconsider what the
American taxpayers are being asked to provide to an institution that so
woefully failed history in these recent days.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, as the
gentleman knows, under Helms-Biden, which passed in the year 2000, the
contribution level was reduced from 25 percent to 22 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for the
purposes of a colloquy.
The House State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1950, included
provisions that prohibited the elimination of the Voice of America and
Radio Free Europe broadcast essential to Eastern Europe for another 2
years. While the authorizing level was 8.9 for fiscal year 2004, my
amendment would have authorized $5.5 million for the funding of the
international broadcast for the purposes of continuing Voice of America
and Radio Free Europe to the newly emerging democracies in Eastern
Europe, particularly Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the other
countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
This amendment we thought would have been a reasonable request
because the authorization bill had $8.9 million. This would have asked
for $5.5 million from various accounts in the appropriation process.
Despite new demands on the U.S. Government resources for expanded
international broadcasts to other regions, we agree with both the
chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on International
Relations who have agreed that these broadcasts to the Eastern European
countries, the newly emerging democracies, is an important aspect of
what we should be doing in foreign policy. It has only been 10 years
since the Soviet military occupation ended in Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia; and the last 50 years of Soviet-imposed communism distorted
the social, economic, and political order of these countries.
{time} 1500
Much has changed for the better in these three countries and the rest
of Eastern Europe, but corruption is still pervasive and touches every
sector of these young democracies. Even the European Union and NATO,
which have invited these young countries to be members, have admonished
these candidates for corruptive levels in their government that
threaten the development of their democracies.
U.S. international broadcasting serves as a role model to indigenous
media of Eastern Europe of what nonpartisan, fair and accurate new
coverage should be and as a standard by which local audiences can
measure their own media performance.
In small countries like the Baltics, U.S. international broadcasters
also fill an important niche as a balanced source of international
news, which local news operations, lacking in financial resources,
cannot afford. To cease Voice of America and Radio Free Europe
broadcasting to Eastern Europe including Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania, most importantly would weaken the ability of these
countries' media and civic societies to withstand the social, political
and economic pressures of their transition to stable, democratic and
free market states.
Let us not lose our investment in these valuable European allies. And
I urge the chairman, as we move this bill forward, to really consider
the risk of not having a fair, balanced voice in the media to these
new, emerging democracies, one that can be dominated only by media that
is coming out of Moscow.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I share the gentleman's concerns,
particularly with regard to one of the countries mentioned, Romania,
but as the gentleman knows, the President's request proposed the
elimination or reduction to broadcasted nations that have either
entered or are on the road to joining the European Union or have been
invited into NATO.
And the International Broadcasting Bureau has additional money
because the President's request prioritized money to the Middle East
and the Muslim world, including Southeast Asia, to bolster the efforts
of the war on terrorism.
So we do have report language to require the Broadcasting Board of
Governors to closely monitor the situation in those countries and
inform the committee of any changes that would alter the priorities.
But I understand what the gentleman is saying.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to make one technical
request, and that is at certain times when the chairman speaks, someone
should turn up the mike so we can hear ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York (Mr.
Serrano) for yielding to me and at least giving me the opportunity to
air my amendment and some of the grievances.
As I said before, I have no desire to frustrate colleagues; but a lot
of us here are very frustrated over the quick change that was made with
the unanimous consent and our inability now even to ask to strike the
last word. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is one of my best
friends. We have served together. We come from the same town.
I just want to say that my frustration is that last night at 8 p.m.
this bill had not been introduced. A copy was not available to start
the process of review or drafting of amendments. This morning we had
the text of the bill on line, but not the accompanying report. And now
we have a unanimous consent to limit amendments to ones that were
preprinted in the Record, which for Members not on Appropriations is
impossible, unless it is a simple limitation or ``to strike''
amendment.
I have an amendment which would move money from the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration to the Public
Telecommunication Facilities, Planning and Construction Program, which
is called TFPC. Both of these are under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, on which I sit. As a courtesy to the authorizing
committee members, I believe we should have an opportunity to review
the bill and offer amendments.
Even more troubling is that the Committee on Appropriations has
provided $1.3 million more for NTIA than the President requested, while
cutting PFTP by $40 million.
My amendment would simply move $1,310,000 to the PFTP from the NTIA.
And I think the whole House should have an opportunity to vote on what
the priorities for funding in this bill are.
I feel very strongly about public television. That is what my
amendment would have done. I would like to have had the opportunity to
be able to voice that and to have a vote. That is not going to happen;
and in a desire for expediency, we have thwarted the democratic
process. I share the frustration of my colleague from Vermont and other
colleagues who do not have the opportunity.
Again, as a member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, I believe that what went on here was wrong and
should not happen again.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for giving me the
ability to voice these problems on the House floor, and I would hope
that as we negotiate this bill and continue to negotiate with the other
House and the bill comes back that we will increase money for public
television, we will increase money for the PFTP. And I would hope that
on both sides of the aisle they look at that and can find more money
for the very worthwhile programs of public television. I thank my
colleague.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel), my brother, his comments. We understand his frustration,
[[Page H7271]]
but his last comments were correct. As this bill goes along and
continues to go into conference, it is the intention of both the
chairman and I to continue to work on those areas that are deficient in
the hope that they could grow as they should.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is supposed to be here, but
in the interim, just to briefly discuss the issues.
The bill provides, as people know, the funding for the programs whose
impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and community
diplomacy. The overall bill today recommends a total of $37.9 billion
in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level
of fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request.
For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in
discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request. The
bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform
traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also
provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and
local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. That has been an issue
that a lot of people have been deeply concerned about.
It provides $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an
increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the
President's request. This will result in more than 2,500 new agents and
analysts at the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence
and continue the fight on crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cybercrime.
Also, there is $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and
funding above the request for language translation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) regarding a
serious problem my constituents are facing with the Department of
Justice. I had originally planned to file an amendment to limit funding
for the Department of Justice by $1.5 million until they settled over
90 administrative claims that my constituents filed against the
Department of Justice as a result of the destruction of their property
during the Pines Fire of 2002.
In the summer of 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration borrowed a
National Guard helicopter to perform a marijuana search in Julian,
California. The helicopter pilot made a mistake and clipped a power
line causing a fire that destroyed 41 homes and thousands of acres of
private property. The DEA took responsibility for the incident and
agreed to give claimants fair compensation for their loss. About 200
claims were filed.
It has been nearly a year since the first claim was filed and the
Department of Justice still has failed to settle over 90 of the largest
claims. Some of my constituents have resorted to living in tents on
their property because they do not have the money to rebuild their
homes.
This morning I met with senior officials of Department of Justice and
I believe that we are on the path to resolving this issue. I thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for working with me to ensure that
the Department of Justice successfully settles every claim, and I look
forward to putting this matter behind us.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa) for bringing this matter to our attention. We are confident
that the Department of Justice will soon resolve the issue, and I will
continue to work with the gentleman to make sure this happens.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that shortly the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) will be offering yet another motion to have the committee
rise. Before that happens, I just want to make one point.
I recall last week when the gentleman from Vermont was sitting here
on the floor, and I was kidding him about how it is that the only
Socialist in the House has been able to pass more amendments to
appropriations bills the past 2 years than any other Member. And he
told me if I wanted to have a similar success rate, I should listen
more to him. And perhaps I should.
And I want to point out that last week I worked with him and the
committee worked with him and we were able to restructure an amendment
that he had on weatherization so that the committee wound up accepting
the amendments adding, I believe, $15 million to that appropriation.
That happened because there were no procedural surprises, and we had
the time to work out that amendment.
The schedule that we worked on today has been sort of a surprise to
everybody. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) did not know that his
bill was going to come up before the Foreign Operations bill. I did
not. Those decisions were made in a rather disorderly fashion because
we are trying to accommodate each other in the last week of the
session.
I regret the fact that the amendment that the gentleman wants to
offer is out of order, but I would simply point out that I have a
personal track record of trying to work with the gentleman in trying to
facilitate his amendments.
I think the committee has tried, in general, to help Members, whether
they agree with their amendments or not, to see that they have an
opportunity to have them discussed before the House. But in this
instance we have now had two votes and shortly, apparently, are going
to have a third because the gentleman is upset because somehow either
the House or the committee is seen as being to blame for the fact that
the gentleman filed last night an amendment which he knew was out of
order.
And I, for the life of me, do not understand why the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) or I or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano)
or anyone else on the committee should be held responsible for the fact
that the gentleman filed an amendment which he knew to be out of order
when he filed it.
I would like to accommodate the gentleman as often as we can, but I
do not think the House ought to be held at bay because the gentleman
made a mistake in drafting his amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
{time} 1515
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me review the situation and set the
facts right.
Number one, historically, it has been my experience, and I think the
experience of many Members, that when one files an amendment, when it
is placed in the Congressional Record, that, in every instance that I
can recall, when one asks for unanimous consent to make a minor
modification, that unanimous consent is granted.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can take back my time to correct that,
on two occasions in the past 3 or 4 years, I myself have tried to
correct amendments; and I have been denied that opportunity.
Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would allow me to make the point.
Mr. OBEY. I would, but I want to make sure it is a correct point. Go
ahead. I yield.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the reality here is that throughout this
country today, over 100 cities and towns have spoken out, including
three States, with deep concern about various aspects of the U.S.A.
PATRIOT Act. For many people, conservatives and progressives, the
decline of civil liberties in this country and the ability of the FBI
to go into libraries and bookstores is an issue of enormous concern. It
is beyond my comprehension why that issue cannot be debated on the
floor of the House.
Maybe my amendment would win. We have 130 cosponsors. Maybe it would
lose, but when we talk about the democracy, how can we not debate an
issue of enormous consequence regarding civil liberties, and that has
been my simple request.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, with all due respect to
the
[[Page H7272]]
gentleman, the content of his amendment is not in question. I support
the amendment. I would like to see the House vote on it, but the
gentleman from Virginia is in a position where if he makes an exception
to a unanimous consent agreement entered into for one Member, then he
has to do it for everyone else; and the fact is that the gentleman
himself, if he wanted the amendment considered, had some obligation to
the House to have the amendment printed in a form that he knew was in
order. He knew that the amendment was not in order when he filed the
amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, no, that is
not correct.
Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, but everyone else knew it. I assume he knew it,
too.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are obviously going to grind to a halt; and I am
afraid that as a result of that, we will wind up going up to the
Committee on Rules and adopting a far more limiting amendment which I
do not believe we ought to do because I do not believe in shutting down
the minority like that. But I do think you have to have some sense of
responsibility on the part of all parties, including those who belong
to no political party in this House, if we are going to make our way
through this week; and with all due respect to the gentleman, who I
regard as a friend and have a great deal of affection for, I do not
believe that it is fair to hold the House hostage because the gentleman
drew an amendment that was not in order.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to say to my friend and gentleman from Vermont that I do
not think anyone here is discussing the merits of the issue. At the
risk of using an old phrase since September 11, perhaps since September
12, everybody on the Committee on Appropriations knows that I have made
a career, if you will, of denouncing the abuses on civil liberties in
this country. I think the gentleman knows that. I think all Members who
have come in contact with me know that. I have become a broken record
on the issue of what is happening to us as a Nation in terms of our
civil liberties.
We are not discussing that at this very moment. We have a problem. We
are charged with the responsibility of getting a bill through the House
that, in addition to dealing with this particular issue that the
gentleman speaks to, also deals with the security of our embassies
overseas; that pays the salaries of the men and women who do the
fighting against drugs in this country; and that goes across the way in
putting together the kind of legislation that we call the Commerce,
Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies bill.
If nothing else is accomplished today, and it does look, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has said, like
we are heading towards a very difficult rule coming out of the
committee, if nothing else happens today, I think it is important for
the gentleman from Vermont to know that nothing on this side, and I do
not believe anything in the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf)
behavior had anything to do with the desire to shut down the discussion
of civil liberties. I will never be part of that. On the contrary, I
would fight for time to be involved in that fight.
This is about a process, a process that some people, somehow, did not
become part of, did not alert us about, did not ask us to be involved
in, to be of assistance; and now we have come to this point. I
understand that.
In the past, I have engaged in behavior that says we have to get
things done; but just for the record, this ranking member, this Member
from New York, would never participate in an action to shut down a
discussion on civil liberties because that, to me, is the strongest
issue as ranking member of this committee; and I will not rest till I
undo the harm that has been done to the people in this country. This
was about a process, not about a shutting down of discussion.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Before I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), let
me say I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comment.
To the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have been very fair.
In fact, we have been very fair to every Member in the House, on both
sides of the aisle; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr.
Obey) points are well taken. There are other amendments that have not
been made in order, and I am not going to get into a debate. If the
gentleman wants me to yield, I will yield to him; but I think we have
been fair, and I did just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) for the comments.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) about the valuable
services provided by the Police Corps program, which is funded in this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Police Corps program has had remarkable success in
training and preparing our Nation's law enforcement officers. In just 5
years, 22 States have organized and implemented Police Corps programs,
and five more States have been approved but await funding.
Over 1,000 Police Corps officers are already at work in various State
and local agencies. Each of these officers receive a $30,000 college
scholarship and 24 weeks of training in exchange for a 4-year service
commitment. More than 85 percent of Police Corps officers remain on the
job after their required service is complete.
I believe every member of this committee recognizes the important
role the police officers play in the protection of our Nation and our
citizens. I applaud the chairman and the rest of the CJS committee for
the commitment they have shown to the Police Corps program.
The $28 million appropriation for Police Corps in fiscal year 2004 is
greatly needed. This amount is almost double the $15 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. However, due to the past
underestimates in program costs, Police Corps is still struggling to
fund its existing State appropriations and is not able to fund
additional programs which have already been approved.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) his view
regarding the important training conducted by the Police Corps program,
and I would ask if any additional support may be available for this
much-needed program.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the
gentleman for his comments on the importance of the Police Corps. I
have heard from several other Members on this issue, and I know that
many of our colleagues would agree with the gentleman about the role
this program has had in helping to provide an exceptional level of
training for our Nation's police force.
I support the program. It is a good program, and I will work with the
gentleman and the Senate to ensure the program is well funded in the
conference.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I look forward to
working with him and other members of the committee to provide more
funding for the Police Corps program.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
think the problem, Mr. Chairman, is when the gentleman indicates that
other people are also impacted negatively by this process. It suggests
that the process we worked on today, or that my colleague and others
engaged in, was a faulty process. It is not my intention to bring this
body to a halt, and I will not ask for another motion to rise; but I
must say, nobody should be happy that the American people are not going
to have a debate on one of the most important constitutional issues
facing this country. This process was very, very faulty; and I think it
is unfortunate that that occurred.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
[[Page H7273]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering
harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which such funds are made
available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect
from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on
October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that (1) the United Nations undertaking is
a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking will involve
United States Armed Forces under the command or operational
control of a foreign national; and (3) the President's
military advisors have not submitted to the President a
recommendation that such involvement is in the national
security interests of the United States and the President has
not submitted to the Congress such a recommendation.
Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2004.
Sec. 611. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 612. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance'', not more than 90 percent of the
amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an
entity when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity
that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined
in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public
safety officer who retires or is separated from service due
to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a
personal injury sustained in the line of duty while
responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as
such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better
level of health insurance benefits at the time of retirement
or separation as they received while on duty.
Sec. 613. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 614. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 616 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section
616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year
2004.
Sec. 615. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law may be used for (1) the
implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the
implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); and (2) any system to
implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result
in the immediate destruction of any identifying information
submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been
determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Sec. 616. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts deposited or available in the Fund established under
42 U.S.C. 10601 in any fiscal year in excess of $625,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until the following
fiscal year.
Sec. 617. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 618. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of State shall be available for
the purpose of granting either immigrant or nonimmigrant
visas, or both, consistent with the determination of the
Secretary of State under section 243(d) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or
residents of countries that the Secretary of Homeland
Security has determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting
the return of citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents
under that section.
Sec. 619. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 620. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette
recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used
primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic
equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 621. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 622. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary, and the Small Business Administration shall each
establish a policy under which eligible employees may
participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible
without diminished employee performance: Provided, That, not
later than six months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, each of the aforementioned entities shall provide that
the requirements of this section are applied to 100 percent
of the workforce: Provided further, That, of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and the Small Business
Administration, $250,000 shall be available to each
Department or agency only to implement telecommuting
programs: Provided further, That, every six months, each
Department or agency shall provide a report to the Committees
on Appropriations on the status of telecommuting programs,
including the number of Federal employees eligible for, and
participating in, such programs, and uses of funds designated
under this section: Provided further, That each Department or
agency shall designate a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of
telecommuting programs and serve as a point of contact on
such programs for the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 623. The paragraph under the heading ``Small Business
Administration--Disaster Loans Program Account'' in chapter 2
of division B of Public Law 107-117 is amended by inserting
``or section 7(b) of the Small Business Act'' after
``September 11, 2001''.
Sec. 624. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
grant, transfer or assign a license for a commercial TV
broadcast station to any party (including all parties under
common control) if the grant, transfer or assignment of such
license would result in such party or any of its
stockholders, partners, members, officers or directors,
directly or indirectly, owning, operating or controlling, or
having a cognizable interest in TV stations which have an
aggregate national audience reach, as defined in 47 C.F.R.
73.3555, exceeding thirty-five (35) percent.
Sec. 625. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are released
without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the
data.
(b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives shall include in all such data releases, language
similar to the following that would make clear that trace
data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-
related crime:
``(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement
authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale
and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies
may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons
are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not
all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms
traced are used in crime.
``(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for
purposes of determining which types, makes or models of
firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected
do not constitute a random sample and should not be
considered representative of the larger universe of all
firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe.
Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and
sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily
represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general
are acquired for use in crime.''.
TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
state and local law enforcement assistance
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$24,122,000 are rescinded.
community oriented policing services
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$6,378,000 are rescinded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Are there amendments at this
point?
[[Page H7274]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida
Mr. WELDON of Florida. 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 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under by the act may be used to issue patents on claims
directed to or encompassing a human organism.
{time} 1530
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, technology proceeds at a rapid
rate, bringing great benefits to humankind from treatments of disease
to greater wealth and greater knowledge of our world. However,
sometimes technology can be used to undermine what is meant to be
human, including the exploitation of human nature for the purpose of
financial gain.
Several weeks ago, at a meeting of the European Society of Human
Reproduction and Embryology in Madrid, Spain, it was reported that
scientists had created the first male-female hybrid human embryos. The
researchers transplanted cells from male embryos into female embryos
and allowed them to grow for 6 days. This research was universally
condemned as unnecessary and unethical.
Reuters reported that one member of the European Society condemned
this research, saying there are very good reasons why this type of
research is generally rejected by the international research community.
Furthermore, the scientists who created these she-male embryos
reportedly want to patent this research.
It is important that we, as a civilized society, draw the line where
some rogue scientists fail to exercise restraint. Just because
something can be done does not mean that it should be done. A patent on
such human organisms would last for 20 years. We should not allow such
researchers to gain financially by granting them an exclusive right to
practice such ghoulish research.
Long-standing American patent and trademark policy states that human
beings at any stage of development are not patentable, subject to
matters under 35 U.S.C. section 101. Though current policy would not
issue patents on human embryos, Congress has remained silent on this
subject. Though this amendment would not actually ban this practice, it
is about time that Congress should simply reaffirm current U.S. patent
policy and ensure there is not financial gain or ownership of human
beings by those who engage in these activities.
This amendment simply mirrors the current patent policy concerning
patenting humans. The Patent Office has, since 1980, issued hundreds of
patents on living subject matter, from microorganisms to nonhuman
animals. It does not issue patents on human beings nor should it.
Congress should reaffirm this policy, and this amendment simply
accomplishes this by restricting funds for issuing patents on human
embryos, human organisms.
Congress should speak out, and I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that this has no bearing on stem
cell research or patenting genes, it only affects patenting human
organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want it repeated again
so it is clear. Is the gentleman saying that this amendment would not
interfere in any way with any existing patents with respect to stem
cells?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
respond that, no, it would not. And I recognize that there are many
institutions, particularly in Wisconsin, that have extensive patents on
human genes, human stem cells. This would not affect any of those
current existing patents.
The Patent Office policy is not to issue these patents, and there
never has been one. The Congress has been silent on this issue. I am
trying to put us on record that we support the Patent Office in this
position that human life in any form should not be patentable.
Mr. OBEY. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee and the full committee for the work they have done on
this bill. We stand ready to pass this appropriation bill that contains
an egregious error that not only runs counter to a majority in this
Congress, but it runs counter to the views of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General, when asked about the COPS program during his
confirmation hearing, said, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program
has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate
to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on
the street, that crime will be affected and that people will be safer
and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that
conclusively.'' That was June 5, 2003, not at his confirmation hearing.
Well, in addition to Mr. Ashcroft, 224 Members of this body have
signed on to legislation that I and others are cosponsoring to
reauthorize the COPS program. The COPS program, quite literally, gets
the Federal Government off the sidelines in the war against crime, the
war against terrorism, and hires police officers in all our
communities. This bill that we are about to pass contains zero money,
zero dollars and zero cents, for the most important component, which is
the hiring component.
There are a few dollars to keep the COPS office up and running to
administer the last remaining contracts that are out there, but let us
keep in mind what it is that the program has already accomplished:
110,000 cops are on the beat in more than 12,000 communities.
And this is the most democratic, with a small ``d'', of programs in
that it is spread almost equally throughout the country. More than 82
percent of the grants under the COPS program have gone to departments
serving populations of 50,000 persons or less. Three hundred
communities around this country now have police departments that did
not even have them until the COPS program was put into place.
Well, not only do those of us in Congress believe in this program, at
least those 224 of us who have cosponsored the reauthorization of the
COPS program, but the Fraternal Order of Police, the International
Association of Police Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
National Sheriffs Association and on and on.
This is our opportunity to fund that program. This is our chance to
say that in addition to supporting it and cosponsoring the legislation,
we also want to provide the funding for it.
Mr. Chairman, I have the strange suspicion that despite the great
success of this program, despite the fact that every day our leaders
are standing up and saying that homeland security begins in our
hometowns, despite the fact that every day we have a red, a yellow, a
fuchsia, a teal alert telling our officers at home they better be on
alert, we are eliminating perhaps the most successful anticrime program
in the history of the Federal Government. And, today, in this bill, we
do precious little to breathe life into it.
I had intended to offer an amendment to move a few dollars, not a
lot, but a few dollars into the spending program for the hiring of
additional COPS police officers. It had the support of some of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were going to offer the
amendment with me.
Let me say there is more that we should do than just reinstitute the
hiring program. We should respond to some of my colleagues,
particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who
[[Page H7275]]
have had criticism of the program. They said that it provided hiring
funding, and then it gradually faded away and some departments did not
want to hire any more officers. That is why my reauthorization bill
would allow them to use the funds under the COPS program to backfill
existing officers.
Secondly, my amendment and the reauthorization bill, would it be
passed, would allow them to invest in technology, in police scanners,
surveillance devices, and the like.
This is one of those instances that, unfortunately, are not too
uncommon in this body, where a majority, a strong majority of Members
feel that something should be done and a small minority of Members
prevent it from being done. This was our opportunity to do it, and I
would have liked the opportunity to offer it.
I should point out that my colleague, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano), is a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize it; my
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a cosponsor of the
bill to reauthorize the COPS program. And were we to have the
opportunity to have a hearing, a debate, and a vote on it in the
Committee on the Judiciary, I am quite certain it would pass.
Our colleagues on the other side of this building, in the other body,
they too have demonstrated their support for it. They have more than 50
cosponsors there as well.
Let this bill be heard. Let the COPS program live to see another day.
This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic initiative. Police
officers, I would point out, tend to in many, many cases be Republican
voters. But that is not what this is about. This is about a program
that worked, that had the misfortune of having President Clinton's name
in front of it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to clarify
something that the gentleman, my brother from New York, said. It was
not that a majority wanted something and a small group stopped it. It
was that we had a unanimous consent. And by virtue of its being
unanimous consent, one could argue that it was the majority that made
that decision, fair or unfair as it was.
And it was not the attempt of anyone here, not the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), not I, to shut anyone down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on united states contributions to unesco
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be made available for the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and clear. It is
to strike the funds for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984,
since President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and the proposal now is
that we rejoin. And this strikes the funding, which I think is a good
idea.
UNESCO was started with a bad idea. It became very corrupted, and it
was almost unanimous that we get out of UNESCO in 1984, and actually I
see no reason for us to rejoin.
Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They
came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American,
certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO's
main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual
neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums;
something that we hardly need.
In one of the publications put out from UNESCO it describes rather
well what their intentions are. The publication is called Toward World
Understanding. Let me just quote from that.
``One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys
and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society. As
long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education
and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we
have pointed out, it is frequently the family,'' the family, it says,
``that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should,
therefore, use the means described earlier to combat family
attitudes.''
Now, that is coming from a publication put out by UNESCO and states
one of their goals. And I might just remind my colleagues of who the
founding director general was, and that happened to have been Sir
Julian Huxley. Huxley helped to write some of the goals set in the
UNESCO, and he happens to be a believer in eugenics, but let me just
quote from him what he thought this organization should do.
He says, ``The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific
world humanism.'' And those words have not been changed; they still
exist in these documents. They have not repealed that concept.
He goes on to say, ``In its education program, it can stress the
ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all people with
the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate
nations to a world organization.'' They are rather explicit in what the
goal of UNESCO is through the educational process.
``It is also to help the emergence of a single world culture, even
though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy could not be
passed now,'' they say, ``in time, the world will become ready for
it.''
So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very
sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money.
It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of
Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we
are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.
{time} 1545
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The bill includes $71.4 million for the United States to join UNESCO.
There was a vote, I believe, in the last Congress whereby this issue
was voted on. I believe it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde). This was an initiative that President Bush announced last
year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was
rife with corruption and an anti-Western bias. The organization was
mismanaged and was not working with regard to the national interest.
Since that time, the Bush administration believes that the organization
has undergone a number of reforms and the current leadership is
committed to sustaining these gains and is committed to fundamental
human rights and democratic principles. The Bush administration
believes that participation in UNESCO will allow them to be engaged
with the international partners on a host of critical issues.
Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to stand with the Bush
administration on this initiative and reject the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it is one of those
issues where, instead of removing ourselves from involvement, we should
be doing just the opposite and, that is, involving ourselves even more.
UNESCO aims to promote peace and security through facilitating
collaboration among member states in the areas of education, science,
and culture. The following is a list of UNESCO's areas of activity and
an example of its work in each area:
In the area of education, for instance. UNESCO promotes literacy and
in post-Taliban Afghanistan by providing schooling materials and
assisting with the reconstruction of institutions. In communication and
information, it promotes press freedom and independent media in
Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the area of culture, it has
encouraged countries to sign the World Heritage Convention to protect
sites of cultural significance within their borders. In natural
sciences, it provides assessment of ocean conditions and resources for
preservation. In social and human sciences, it promotes research and
developing educational materials on HIV/AIDS. So many different
organizations throughout the world, from the arts, to scholars, to
religious organizations support our involvement in UNESCO again.
The President has made a crucial first step toward U.S. reentry to
[[Page H7276]]
UNESCO by including $71 million for U.S. dues in his 2004 budget
request. The State Department authorization bill currently authorizes
this request and ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay U.S. dues to
UNESCO. Not only will this allow us this involvement but my
understanding is that by doing it now, we get a seat on the board which
then would allow us to move programs and behavior in UNESCO to our
liking and to our needs. I rise in support of the gentleman from
Virginia's comments of the President's request and desire to reenter
UNESCO and in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this attempt to overturn the
President's decision to return the United States to membership in
UNESCO. The gentleman from Texas offered a similar amendment during the
markup of this year's State Department authorization bill in the
Committee on International Relations. In an overwhelming bipartisan
vote, his amendment was rejected. Last week the whole House voted
resoundingly in favor of authorizing full funding to support U.S. entry
when the State Department bill was passed. I strongly agree with
President Bush that our reentry will support UNESCO's mission to
advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.
Our national decision to rejoin UNESCO reflects our understanding in
the Congress and in the administration that UNESCO has a critical role
to advance U.S. foreign policy goals, such as facilitating the
rewriting of educational materials to remove passages that incite
racial hatred, violence, and intolerance. UNESCO will be a key to
rebuilding Afghanistan's educational system, and it is critical for
establishing educational programs on HIV/AIDS, malaria and other
infectious diseases.
UNESCO has undertaken massive management reforms under the leadership
of its Director General, Mr. Matsuura of Japan. The organization has
achieved a huge cutback in its staffing, has held its budget to zero
nominal growth for many years, and has eliminated what used to be a
corrupt structure. It is critical that the United States, the one
remaining superpower on this planet, resume its seat at the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
When UNESCO was founded, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the Second World
War, its motto was, ``It is in the minds of men that war begins and it
is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be
constructed.'' This was never more true than it is today. After a 20-
year absence, we have now gotten consensus in the House, in the Senate,
and with this administration that the time is now the right time to
rejoin UNESCO.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the amendment
and to support the President's decision to return the United States to
UNESCO. I earnestly hope that this issue can finally be put to rest.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Without objection, the
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me mention once again that the amendment
strikes all the funding for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since
1984. President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and that was a very
popular move. The argument now is that UNESCO has made some reforms and
therefore we should get back in. But their goals have not changed. I
have already mentioned some of the goals of UNESCO, and they are not
beneficial to us and they do not represent American ideals; it is an
attack on American sovereignty. But during these 18 years since we have
been out of UNESCO, it has only been the last year or two where they
have talked about reforms. So over all these years, nothing has been
done.
But more importantly, it is the goals of UNESCO. For instance,
UNESCO's position on international taxation is that they would like to
impose an international tax. If that is what the people want, if that
is what the Congress wants, then you vote against my amendment. But if
you think it is a bad idea for the U.N. and UNESCO to be leveling a
worldwide tax, then you vote for my amendment.
I do not think the American people want that. I think the American
people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like
not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula.
We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our
local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the
Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international
organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are
not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little
while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even
believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result
of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.
I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a
member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice
your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we
should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with
people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the
necessity of having an international government. This is what is
implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions;
but here our children are going to war with the education system by the
United Nations dictating to us educational standards.
But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been
fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its
assistance to China's brutal, coercive population control program. That
is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of
Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot
control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the
money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose
control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as
far as our Constitution is concerned.
UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the
United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional
consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands
and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is
somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations
and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the
same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that
originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as
our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority
to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it
is done without congressional approval.
UNESCO's World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American
public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a
movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that
there will not be control by the American people through their
Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not
only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation.
Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of
control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those
who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the
United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go
to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I
take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform
to that oath.
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 pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. 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 Texas (Mr.
Paul) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H7277]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler:
Insert in an appropriate place the following:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be used to enforce the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress
292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, on June 26, 2002, in Newdow v. U.S.
Congress, a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that a California school district's policy and practice
of voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was
unconstitutional claiming that the use of the phrase ``one nation,
under God'' violates the establishment clause of the first amendment to
the Constitution. In February of this year, the Ninth Circuit, the full
Ninth Circuit effectively upheld the decision of the three-judge panel.
Mr. Chairman, the founders of the United States set up a brilliant
system of government consisting of three separate branches with
unambiguous roles. The Congress legislates, the President executes, and
the courts judge. However, as in any organization of institutions with
potentially competing interests, one institution would be constructed
to be the weakest. Alexander Hamilton made it very clear that the
framers had relegated the judiciary to this distinction when he said in
Federalist No. 78: ``It proves incontestably that the judiciary is,
beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power and it
proves that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in
continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its
coordinate branches.''
Hamilton laid out how practically this so-called feebleness manifests
itself under what he referred to as the ``plan of the convention,'' or
what we call today the Constitution of the United States of America,
when he said once again in Federalist No. 78: ``The judiciary has no
influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of
the strength or of the wealth of the society and can take no active
resolution whatever.
{time} 1600
``It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely
judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm
for the efficacy of its judgments.''
As Hamilton pointed out, the legislative branch controls the purse
strings of this government, and the plan of the Convention set that out
in article 1, section 9, when the Constitution states: ``No money shall
be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by
law,'' which is the case for our being here today, Mr. Chairman.
When the legislative branch, that is, the Congress, believes the
judicial branch to be in error, the Congress may refuse to fund actions
to enforce the court's judgment by the executive branch agency that
would execute those judgments or, in Hamilton's words, ``depend on the
arm of the executive for the efficacy of its judgments.''
Specifically, the U.S. Marshals Service, an agency of the Department
of Justice, executes and enforces all lawful writs, processes, and
orders of the U.S. district courts, the U.S. courts of appeal, and the
Court of International Trade, according to 28 U.S.C. 566(C), and I
highlight that it enforces all lawful writs, orders, and processes.
I, Mr. Chairman, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress,
believe the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress to be in error. This
was evidenced by the overwhelming support of H. Res. 132 on March 12,
2003. This resolution expressed the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Newdow ruling is inconsistent with the first
amendment and should be overturned. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am
offering this amendment to the FY 2004 Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues would say ``no'' to the
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and support my amendment
to stop the enforcement of that ludicrous decision.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
We have a position from the Justice Department, and I will read a
portion for Members. It says that ``The Justice Department asked the
United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to
recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the
Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is
constitutional.'' And I, as I am sure most Members of this body are, am
opposed to what the Court ruled and agree with what the Justice
Department is saying here.
Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification
that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other
views. Schools across America and hundreds of thousands of school
children have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurance as they
have started their day with the Pledge.
And they go on to say, and I agree, ``Our religious heritage has been
recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in a National Motto,
'In God we trust,' the National Anthem, the Declaration of
Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and
again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role
religion has played in America's foundation, history and character.
``The Justice Department,'' they go on to say, ``will vigorously
defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the
Pledge.'' And I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft will do that.
The concern of the amendment is, and I will submit the full statement
of the Justice Department in the Record, they end by saying this:
``Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be
premature. Congress,'' they say, ``should consider whether the Supreme
Court should be given the opportunity to review the Ninth Circuit's
decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and
the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the
government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is
real harm to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.'' And this is the case. ``So
if the Ninth Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice
Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen
the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the
Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.
``Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court,
there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory
language as limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend funds in
a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.''
I do not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand, and I was
with my colleague here, but I certainly do not want to do anything in
this bill that does, as Justice Department said, if it is gutted
legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that
claim and could diminish the strength of the hands of the opponents'
efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in
defending the Pledge of Allegiance.
I think to do this on a legislative appropriations bill, we really
have to go with the Justice Department, and I am going to rely on
Attorney General Ashcroft to fight the Ninth Circuit's case and not do
something that might, even though the meaning is good, work against the
other way and result in something taking place that I certainly do not
want to take place, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and
frankly, I do not think this House wants to take place; and I oppose
the amendment.
The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to
reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of
Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without
qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has
expressed any other view. Schools across America, and hundreds of
thousands of school children, have relied on the Supreme Court's
repeated assurances as they have started their day with the Pledge.
Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for
hundreds of years in the National Motto (``In God we trust''), National
Anthem, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the
Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can
acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's
foundation, history and character. The Justice Department will
vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to
recite the Pledge.
[[Page H7278]]
The Newdow case was about whether the inclusion of the phrase ``under
God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment. Newdow sued both the United States and the Elk
Grove School District to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. The
Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge is unconstitutional when its
voluntary recitation is led by teachers in public elementary schools.
On April 30, 2003, the Justice Department joined the Elk Grove School
District and asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit
(Newdow has also sought to overrule the 9th Circuit for an even broader
invalidation of the Pledge). The latest filling by the Justice
Department was on July 14, 2003. Some time in October, we will know
whether the Supreme Court has decided whether or not to take the case.
Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be
premature. Congress should consider whether the Supreme Court should be
given the opportunity to review the 9th Circuit's decision without
intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural
posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before
the Court involves demonstrating that there is a real harm to the 9th
Circuit's ruling. So, if the 9th Circuit's ruling is gutted
legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that
claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to
diminish or eliminate the Federal government's role in defending the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there
is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory
language as limiting the Federal government's ability to spend funds in
a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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 Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the title), insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act to the
Federal Communications Commission may be expended to grant,
transfer, or assign any license for any broadcast station
if--
(1) the party (including all parties under common control)
to which such license would be granted, transferred, or
assigned directly or indirectly owns, operates or controls a
daily newspaper and the grant, transfer, or assignment of
such license will result in:
(A) the predicted or measured 2 mV/m contour of an AM
station, computed in accordance with 47 CFR 73.183 or 73.186,
encompassing the entire community in which such newspaper is
published;
(B) the predicted 1 mV/m contour for an FM station,
computed in accordance with 47 CFR 73.313, encompassing the
entire community in which such newspaper is published; or
(C) the Grade A contour of a TV station, computed in
accordance with 47 CFR 73.684, encompassing the entire
community in which such newspaper is published; or
(2) as a result of such grant, transfer, or assignment an
entity would directly or indirectly own, operate, or control
two television stations licensed in the same Designated
Market Area (DMA) (as determined by Nielsen Media Research or
any successor entity), unless--
(A) the Grade B contours of the stations (as determined by
47 CFR 73.684) do not overlap; or
(B)(i) at the time the application to acquire or construct
the station is filed, at least one of the stations is not
ranked among the top four stations in the DMA, based on the
most recent all-day (9:00 a.m.-midnight) audience share, as
measured by Nielsen Media Research or by any comparable
professional, accepted audience ratings service; and
(ii) at least 8 independently owned and operating, full-
power commercial and noncommercial TV stations would remain
post-merger in the television market in which the communities
of license of the TV stations in question are located and--
(I) count only those stations the Grade B signal contours
of which overlap with the Grade B signal contour of at least
one of the stations in the proposed combination; but
(II) in areas where there is no Nielsen DMA, count the TV
stations present in an area that would be the functional
equivalent of a TV market and count only those TV stations
the Grade B signal contours of which overlap with the Grade B
signal contour of at least one of the stations in the
proposed combination.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this government, our government, derives
its just power from the consent of the governed. Those words form the
basic founding principle of this Nation: The government derives its
just powers from the consent of the governed.
But in order for the governed to give their consent, they must be
informed. It must be not an ignorant consent. It must be an informed
consent. It must be a consent based on knowledge and accurate
information and a multiplicity of voices and the opportunity for
everyone to be heard. The marketplace of ideas in this country shall
not be shut down. Otherwise, we lose the basic founding principle of
our country.
But, unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission in its
decision on June 2 has gone a long way to doing precisely that,
shutting down the marketplace of ideas. What they did was to weaken the
rules governing cross-ownership of the media, newspapers, television,
radio. What the FCC has done very quietly without any public hearings
outside of Washington except for one, which they held in Richmond,
Virginia, they have passed a rule which will shut down the ability for
people to understand what is going on in this country.
We need to restore the previous rules, and we have an opportunity in
this bill, through this amendment, to do precisely that in the next
fiscal year. Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving
localism, diversity, and competition in our airwaves, standards that
are needed for a vibrant democratic republic.
The FCC's decision, if we allow it to go forward, will permit one
company to own the local newspaper, local television station, including
the most popular, and several of the top local radio stations in any
single market. It paves the way for one company to dominate a local
community's flow of information.
The rule change makes it much more likely that a company based
hundreds or even thousands of miles away will control a community's
information and whatever information gets into that community.
Only large companies have the resources to purchase and operate a
newspaper, TV stations, and radio stations. Competition, diversity of
voices, and local control are at stake if this rule is allowed to
stand.
The FCC's decision will allow broadcast television to be highly
concentrated in the vast majority of markets as defined by the Merger
Guidelines of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade
Commission.
Before the FCC changed the rules, one company could own two TV
stations, or duopolies, in a single market as long as at least eight
independent voices remained. This restricted duopolies to sizable
markets. If the new rules are allowed, 95 percent of Americans could
see duopolies in their media markets. These changes will greatly reduce
the number of independent and local voices, and in many instances they
will completely eliminate those independent voices. Democracy requires
the widest possible dissemination of information, yet these new rules
will restrict access to diverse voices.
This amendment that is offered by myself, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
would prevent the FCC from implementing its misguided decision and
would leave in place the media ownership rules that have protected
localism, diversity, and competition in our media, as well as
preserving the basic principles of this democratic republic. We have an
opportunity here to correct a mistake, a huge bureaucratic error, that
works against the best interests of the vast majority of the people in
this country.
I offer this amendment, and I ask for the Members' support.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey-
Price amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
This amendment will deny funding to the FCC for the purposes of
implementing its new cross-ownership and
[[Page H7279]]
local TV ownership rules. I believe this amendment is just the first in
a series of extremely important steps to ensure that diversity in the
media, both nationally and locally, will not diminish further.
The FCC's newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and the local
TV ownership rule will exacerbate the current minority ownership
crisis. According to the newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule,
one company will be permitted to own a local newspaper and local TV and
radio stations in one single market.
If this rule is allowed to stand, it is possible that all local print
and broadcast news could be controlled by a single company. The new
local TV ownership rule will allow one company to own two TV stations
in the same market as long as there are three other independent voices
within that same market. The new rule will make creating a duopoly
easier for a large corporation, while greatly limiting the number of
independent voices on TV, including those of minorities.
Minority owners' share of the commercial television and radio market
is already at a historical low. At the end of the 1990s, minorities
owned only 1.9 percent of the country's licensed television stations.
In the year 2000, minorities owned only 4 percent of the Nation's
commercial AM and FM radio stations. Many of these minority owners are
single-station operators.
I believe their voices, as well as the voices of other independent
operators, will be silenced as large corporations are granted virtually
unimpeded access to media markets under the new FCC rules.
The American public supports a diverse and competitive media. Over 2
million Americans have contacted the FCC to voice their disapproval of
the June 2 decision to ease the limits on media ownership. The
newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and local TV rule will
further stifle minority voices in the media.
Congress must respond and protect the public's access to diverse
sources of information.
{time} 1615
Please support the Hinchey-Price amendment to the CJS appropriations
bill to protect diversity in the media and to allow dissenting voices,
minority voices, small voices to be heard. The public owns the airways.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House what is at stake
this afternoon. The Federal Communications Commission has recommended a
number of changes in ownership patterns for media across the country.
One of the changes was to raise from 35 percent to 45 percent the
percentage of the national TV audience that could be reached by any one
media conglomerate. Another part of the FCC ruling would have expanded
opportunities for cross-ownership of media outlets all around the
country, so that newspapers could own even more television stations
than is the case today.
I oppose everything the FCC did, but the problem is that you have to
make an intelligent judgment about how much you can bite off and win.
The fact is that the Committee on Appropriations adopted my amendment
in committee by a 40 to 25 bipartisan vote, and that amendment
essentially rolled back the Federal Communication Commission's decision
with respect to the national cap on ownership.
It did not go the next step, and I hope we do not try to go the next
step today in the form of the Hinchey amendment. I favor the substance
of it very much, I am totally opposed to cross-ownership. I do not
think a newspaper ought to be able to own a single TV station in the
country, and vice versa. I believe in the widest possible diversity of
opinion.
But the fact is that today, even in the committee approach, we are
taking on the media giants of this country; and when you do that, you
had doggone well better win, and we will not win if the Hinchey
amendment is passed. The Hinchey amendment is not intended to be so,
but it is a killer amendment. It will load up the camel, and it will
break the camel's back.
What I think we ought to do is stick to the judgment the committee
made and win that one and tie that one down first. We are in a terrible
situation today, where five media conglomerates control a 70 percent
share of homes that watch during prime time; 80 percent of the major
cable owners are owned by the same media conglomerates; and we need to
see to it that we do not allow that situation to get any worse.
The problem with this amendment is that if it passes, we will not be
able to get enough votes on this bill to demonstrate to the White House
that they should not veto the bill because of this provision; and I do
not think the House wants to do that if it is interested in protecting
local news values.
The reason I want to protect local news values is because I think
that local owners are the only ones who are likely on occasion to
preempt national network programming. And believe you me, if you want
to see some examples of the kind of programming that I do not think we
want in some of our communities, all you have to do is take a look at
what happened in radio. In radio, the Congress totally deregulated a
few years ago, and what do we have? We have total lack of the ability
of local people to have control over news or to have any real say in
their programming. No nationally owned television station has ever
preempted a network TV program; only locally owned stations have
sometimes done so.
I do not have anything against networks but I think we need diversity
I think we need diversity of decision making, and that is why I
sponsored the amendment that the committee adopted, with the support of
the gentleman from Virginia and others.
If we adopt the Hinchey amendment, we will in essence ruin our
ability to win what we have won so far, and I do not think that is a
wise thing to do. I am not interested in symbolic statements here
today. I want to win. I want to see to it that we roll back the FCC
provision on national ownership. If the Hinchey amendment is adopted,
we will not be in a position to do it, because this bill will get many
fewer votes than it otherwise would have gotten, it will send the wrong
message to the White House, and the net result will be that we will be
crippled in conference in terms of trying to hold the provision in the
committee bill. So I urge defeat of the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), completely; and I would ask Members to vote against the
Hinchey amendment. The Hinchey amendment would weaken the bill and we
would end up with exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
said.
This is an issue of values. This is an issue of values that Members
on both sides of the aisle have to deal with. I know that there have
been powerful lobbyists and interests that have been hired in this town
to work against what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is doing,
and in essence they would come down here and ask you to probably
support the Hinchey amendment. But it is an issue of values.
Many times there is such garbage on these TV shows that a locality
cannot preempt them, ``The Millionaire,'' ``The Bachelor,'' ``The
Bachelorette.'' They do not cover the issues with regard to the famine
in Africa or issues like that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
is right.
I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, this is an issue of
values. If you look at those concerned with the expansion in allowing
one network, one network that may not very well repeat and have our
values, be able to do this, what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) said is exactly right. So I just second it. He said it better
than anyone could.
I urge Members to defeat the Hinchey amendment, because it would do
exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Hinchey amendment. The
FCC's decision of June 2 to loosen the rules on concentrated media
ownership will lead to fewer voices controlling more of the news we
watch, read, and listen to. It will undermine our access to the
independent, unbiased local information that matters to our
communities.
[[Page H7280]]
Last week, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have stressed, the Committee on
Appropriations took an important step in voting on a bipartisan basis
to suspend changes to the national TV ownership cap, a key part of the
media ownership rules the FCC voted to relax on June 2.
The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment would finish the job by suspending
the two remaining rules that the FCC weakened: the newspaper-broadcast
cross-ownership rule and the local TV multiple ownership rule, which
would open the way for more duopolies and even triopolies in owning and
controlling local media.
These amendments, together, are the appropriations equivalent of H.R.
2462, introduced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 88 Members.
Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving localism,
diversity, and competition on our airwaves, standards basic to a
vibrant democracy.
Mr. Chairman, the richness and diversity of community life in America
has been recognized by observers since Tocqueville as one of our
country's abiding strengths. The broadcast media emerged in the 20th
century as critical in relating individuals and groups of individuals
to each other and to the world beyond.
The term ``media'' suggests a linkage beyond the locality to the
worlds of politics and economics and entertainment and culture; but it
also suggests communication within and across a locality or a region,
whereby isolated consumers of media have their identities as members of
the community strengthened, their knowledge increased, their
participation enhanced.
If the day comes, and I am afraid it is fast approaching, when local
media are merely a conduit for nationally generated information and
entertainment, or when a single or few companies monopolize
broadcasting in most local communities, we will have lost a critically
important component of community life.
There are those who say that the presence of 200 options on cable or
satellite television renders the public interest criterion of diversity
a moot concern. They could not be more wrong. It is competition among
local broadcasters in offering news and public affairs, weather, sports
and other programming that produces the kind of diversity and the kind
of audience engagement that enhance community life.
The Hinchey-Price amendment also concerns concentrated power and
influence. This concentration has already gone too far in radio. I
cannot imagine why we would want to take television down the same path.
Regardless of one's political views, it is unsettling to hear of
Cumulus Media banning a vocal group from the play list of all of its
outlets on political grounds.
Then there is the example of a prominent Raleigh media executive who
owns a Fox affiliate. He has been able to reject some network
``reality'' shows as inappropriate. He wonders with good reason whether
the managers of Fox-owned and -operated stations would have that same
discretion to respect community standards.
Mr. Chairman, in the history of media policy, there has never been a
moment when the public was more engaged than they are right now. A
recent poll demonstrates that half of Americans are well aware of this
media concentration issue; and of those who follow the issue closely,
70 percent are opposed to the new FCC rules, while only 6 percent are
in favor.
Our constituents see this issue quite clearly: this is big media
companies and their allies in government squaring off against the
public interest. The question is, how do we see it, and to whom will
Congress listen?
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stand against an FCC decision that was
taken with scant public input and in defiance of the public interest.
Colleagues, let us not get diverted by convoluted, tactical second-
guessing. If Members favor the substance of our amendment and if they
oppose the substance of the FCC decision, they should stand up for what
they believe.
I ask my colleagues to reaffirm the core values of our country's
media policy--localism, competition and diversity--and to support the
Hinchey-Price amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the backward thinking
amendment that would reinstate antiquated local media ownership
limitations. Republicans have long been awaiting a time to deregulate,
since 1984, in fact; and the commission action on June 2 modifies all
of its media ownership rules to comply with the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, an act we all agreed upon, and the Court's interpretation of
that act.
The FCC proceeding represents, in fact, the culmination of a
deregulatory effort that had its birth in the Reagan administration.
This amendment would stop in its tracks the reasonable deregulation of
the new rules. It would bring back the outdated rules of the past.
In fact, under one interpretation of the Hinchey amendment, it would
roll back existing exemptions that have been granted by the FCC over
many years. Under one interpretation, for example, the exception that
has been granted for satellite stations, where a station can own in
joint ownership an unmanned TV station that is a satellite in a rural
area, that exception would be rolled back and TV stations serving rural
communities in America would have to shut down.
Under some interpretations of this amendment, assignments that have
been made that were grandfathered for many years would be rolled back
and companies would have to divest ownership they currently have in
stations. In fact, under this amendment, the provisions of the FCC for
so-called short-form assignments, what happens when companies
reorganize themselves, would considerably be rolled back; and as a
result, there could be divestitures argued under this amendment.
So this backwards-thinking amendment has the potential of even going
back and undoing exemptions that have been granted by Democratic FCCs
over the years to accommodate such things as the public interest
requirements when a station goes bankrupt, becomes defunct, and has to
be picked up by some other station.
Let me right the misconception that has been before this body and,
unfortunately, pervaded the hearings at the Subcommittee on
Appropriations. There are 1,340 television stations in America. Guess
how many Viacom owns? The answer is 39; 2.9 percent. Guess how many Fox
owns? The answer is 37, or 2.8 percent. Guess how many NBC owns?
Twenty-nine, 2.2 percent. ABC owns 10, eight-tenths of one percent. In
fact, if you combine all the network ownership of television stations,
it comes to about 115, which is less than 10 percent of all the
stations operating in America. You would think that the networks own
them all, 90 percent of them, to hear the rhetoric around this debate.
The new rules that have been adopted by the FCC replace the old
newspaper-broadcast-radio-TV cross-ownership rules, with the new set of
rules that allow for different and targeted regulatory treatment,
depending upon the market size.
{time} 1630
It is a size system of regulation, replacing the old autocratic and,
in many cases, arbitrary rules.
The new rules would allow economies of scale to be achieved on the
local level, while ensuring a diversity of voices would be preserved by
permitting, for the first time, common ownership of multiple stations
in the largest markets or expanding the markets where duopolies are, in
fact, permitted. But importantly, while it allows them to do this in
the larger markets, it does not allow that to occur in the smaller
markets. In fact, 73 markets enjoy no duopoly deregulatory relief
whatsoever because they are the smaller markets in America. The FCC's
extension record shows that co-owned stations competed more effectively
with cable and satellite, improved the quality of the second station,
and transitioned to digital quicker. All things said, the benefits flow
to the public.
[[Page H7281]]
Remember, television stations do not compete against one another
alone. They compete against pay-per-view cable and pay-per-view
satellite; and if we weaken the capacity of over-the-air broadcast
television to reach Americans economically and efficiently, we kill off
one of the most important video outlets in America; and, therefore, we
hurt, not help, over-the-air broadcasting.
Moreover, the amendment would prevent new markets from enjoying the
clear localism and diversity public interest benefits. The commission
found that their new rules will promote localism, because they increase
the capacity of these stations to survive against these other important
competitors.
The administration supports the FCC, and has urged Members to oppose
efforts to roll back these rules that ensure that our Nation's free,
over-the-air broadcasters can effectively compete against all of these
new pay services. If all we want is pay services, the Hinchey amendment
will take us there.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect the
voices of the American people, to make sure that their voices, their
opinions, and their concerns are represented on the Nation's airwaves
by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment, and add this amendment to
the good amendment that the committee passed earlier.
How ironic that the United States went to war against a foreign
regime whose oppression was based largely on control of information.
And now, the FCC majority establishes a Saddam-style information system
here in the United States. Have we learned nothing?
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission approved a new set
of media ownership rules that allow large conglomerates to devour more
independent media outlets and impose the laws of the jungle on the
marketplace of ideas. I support the Hinchey-Price amendment because it
would essentially suspend the FCC's decision to weaken media ownership
rules dealing with the cross-ownership and local TV ownership.
The Hinchey-Price amendment would preserve localism. It would
preserve diversity and competition over our airwaves.
Information is not just any commodity like steel and textiles, Mr.
Chairman. A vibrant democracy depends on rich intellectual exchange on
the free flow of ideas from a variety of sources. This is a principle.
It is a principle embedded in the first amendment on free press and
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
But media consolidation stifles dissent and drowns out alternative
voices, giving Americans a stale, uniform product that barely accounts
for individual community values. The recent FCC rules will enrich
moguls, discourage entrepreneurship, and diminish quality. Niche
content like children's programming will suffer. Minority populations
will go underserved. Music and entertainment would become homogenized,
with large media interests also acting as the idealogical sensors. If
you do not believe me, ask the Dixie Chicks.
The rules will further sever the critical bond between media outlets
and their local consumers, as more journalists would answer to
corporate bosses making news judgments from thousands of miles away.
If the day comes, and it had better not, that one corporation owns
several radio and TV stations, the cable network, and the single
newspaper in one town, we may not only have lost the freedom to speak,
but the opportunity to be heard.
The airwaves belong not to the Rupert Murdochs of the world, but to
the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the
American people by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I too rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment. I ask my
colleagues about where they might have been in 1975. I know I had
graduated from the University of Michigan and was on my way to
Washington to work for a Congressman, David Stockman. Think about where
you were, maybe sitting in your living room back in 1975. You might
have been watching the ``Mod Squad'' for the first time or maybe the
third season of ``M.A.S.H.'' In fact, someone told me that Strom
Thurmond was only in his first or second term.
The original newspaper-broadcast ownership rules were adopted in
1975, at the same time when there was little cable penetration, if any,
no local cable news channels, few broadcast stations, and no Internet.
The rule was based on market structure that bears almost no resemblance
to the current environment.
Without a doubt, there have been dramatic changes in the media
marketplace since 1975 when the rule was adopted by the commission.
When the rule was first adopted, there were 7,785 radio stations. There
were 952 TV stations, three broadcast networks, cable television
systems served 13 percent of television households, and direct
broadcast satellite, DBS, providers were nonexistent, and the Internet
was commercially not available.
Today, there are more radio stations, 12,900; 1,600 full-powered TV
stations; 2300 low-powered TV stations; 230 Class A TV stations; four
major broadcast networks, along with other emerging broadcast networks;
and today, cable TV systems serve almost 80 percent of the television
households across the country.
As required by law, the FCC factored the status of the current
marketplace into the new rules. In addition to noting the dramatic
transformation of the marketplace, it also noted that this type of
business combination does advance the goals of localism and diversity.
A key study relied upon by the FCC for these rules found that
broadcasters co-owned by newspaper companies provided more than 50
percent more local news and public affairs broadcasting of better
quality than nonbroadcast network-owned stations, unaffiliated with a
newspaper publisher.
I think about my own hometown. As I walk up to the post office in St.
Joe, Michigan, there are almost a dozen different newspaper stands,
whether it be the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, the Detroit
Free Press, the local Herald Palladium, the South Bend Tribune, USA
Today, and more. WGN owns the Chicago Tribune and Channel 9, which is
broadcast over the air. The South Bend Tribune owns the local CBS
affiliate in South Bend, Channel 22. The case has not been made that
the local ownership has hurt the delivery of fair reporting by those
news organizations.
The Hinchey amendment would take us back to 1975 when the media
marketplace was a much different place. It is working today. I urge my
colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing my great affection
and respect for the authors of this amendment. They are fine men. On
substance, they are right. I agree with them on what it is they had to
say.
But they ignore one basic fact; and I want to speak to my colleagues
on this side of the aisle particularly, and that is that the perfect
good is the enemy of the good.
If we want to get some relief and we want to see to it that we do
something to protect diversity of broadcasting, support the committee
bill as it now is; and I will tell my colleagues why.
Very shortly, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), and I will be making a major effort to bring to the floor of the
House a piece of legislation which will address much more than the 35
percent, 45 percent limit. If my colleagues want to effectively address
that matter, then I urge them to vote against the Hinchey amendment,
not because it is bad, but because it is counterproductive in terms of
achieving the purpose that it seeks to produce, and the result will be
that we will lose the effect of the Obey amendment in delaying the
going into place of the provisions of the order of the FCC with regard
to television.
I have a long history, I would tell my colleagues, of having opposed
the attempts of the FCC to constantly expand the ownership and the
control by
[[Page H7282]]
certain broadcasters of the media, the spectrum, and the minds of the
public. This is bad. It is dangerous. But I would also tell my
colleagues that if we want to do it, then we must do this thing right.
The Obey amendment enables us to begin to put a hold on the unwise
actions of the FCC and to move us forward towards accomplishing the
purpose which we really have of seeing to it that the interests of all
of the people in the great national resource, the spectrum, is
protected for the benefit of all.
The amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York,
will have the practical effect of driving away most of the supporters
of this legislation, particularly those who are active in the industry.
There are better than 600 local broadcasting stations which support
this, including Cox, Hearst Argyle, and Post-Newsweek, because they
recognize that this amendment is in the interests of diversity in the
use of the spectrum. It is supported by Consumers Union, Common Cause,
the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association, Morality in
Media, the National Education Association, the National PTA, the
National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, and Children Now.
I would remind my colleagues who are in such haste to address this to
work with those of us who have dealt with these questions over the
years; and I would remind them of the wonderful story that is told of
the two bulls, the young bull and the old bull. The young bull said,
there is a bunch of cows down at the bottom of the pasture; let us run
down and get one. The old bull said, son, let us walk down and get them
all.
My advice is, follow the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Let
us proceed in an orderly fashion. We have better than 170 sponsors on
legislation that will really do the job. I urge my colleagues to
support us so that we can address this matter in that way. That is the
way that the matter should be dealt with. Let us get them all. Let us
not lose because we have blown an opportunity because we overreached,
we reached beyond our grasp, and we defeated ourselves by the
enthusiastic desire to do good in a way which was counterproductive.
I say with regret and with respect and affection for my friend from
New York, defeat the amendment. Let us go forward to a better
conclusion to the problem by the device of passing real legislation
later on. The best that the House can do today is simply to hold up
through a 1-year limitation on expenditure in this legislation. My
prayer to my colleagues is let us leave ourselves in a situation where
we have a chance of winning and getting this through not only
conference with the Senate, through the House, but also to address the
practical problem of seeing to it that we get the bill signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York.
The FCC issued its revised rules on media ownership, ending one of
the most comprehensive and empirical reviews undertaken at the FCC, or
by any other Federal agency, for that matter. Over a half a million
public comments were received and numerous public hearings were
conducted during this 20-month review. The Hinchey amendment will
change all of that, all of that comprehensive work that the FCC did. As
a result, we now have media ownership rules that reflect today's
market: they balance competition and diversity with local community
needs.
Mr. Chairman, there are two myths that I would like to dispel.
{time} 1645
The first myth is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership adversely
impacts competition in the local markets. There are 40-plus
grandfathered combinations, and they provide the best evidence that
competition, the concern that some of my colleagues have, bears no
fruit.
Mr. Chairman, in the past 20 years there have been no formal
complaints filed against any of the 40-plus grandfathered combinations
at the FCC, nor have there been any antitrust actions initiated by the
Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission or any States
Attorneys General during that time. So there has been no concern of
these 40 grandfathered combinations.
The second myth is, the public did not have an opportunity to
participate in the FCC decision-making process. At least with respect
to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, the public has had the
opportunity to participate in four, not one, two, or three, but four
separate FCC proceedings over a 6-year period. And furthermore, the
Commission never published its rules in advance of their adoption; and,
if so, it saw no reason to deviate from this practice in the media
ownership proceedings.
Lastly, the FCC did not just remove the rules and move along, but
they put in place cross-media limits that are designed particularly to
protect viewpoints, diversity, by ensuring that no company, no group
can control an inordinate share of media outlets in a local market.
So they have already put in place the cross-media limits. They
provided due diligence. The FCC has done this. They put in cross-media
limits, and I have given the two myths so that the people who are for
the Hinchey amendment, to show that they are, indeed, myths.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say that the gentleman
presented the 5-minute or so speech I was planning to make. I want to
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
I think with great foresight the gentleman has recognized that we
have done a good deal of the job that had to be done a long time ago.
There is no reason to move away from where we are today, indeed, in
connection with this competition is having its effect and cross-
ownership is highly overblown.
Mr. Chairman, there may very well have been a time when people were
justified in their concern that ABC, NBC and CBS dominated the media
world and controlled what we watched.
But it is clear that competition has changed that world in many and
varied ways. Today we have cable and many other offerings that give us
more choice than we have ever had.
Those who want to overrule the FCC rules entirely are concerned with
what they consider to be inappropriate programming. But it is not just
ABC, NBC and CBS that provide these programs. Today many broadcasters
and cable programmers provide endless avenues of entertainment that our
diverse American public can enjoy.
We cannot dictate the tastes of the American public. And we have
learned that when we try to control the marketplace by federal dictate,
we most likely end up having our quest for perfection become the enemy
of the good. This amendment would not solve problems, it would create
them, and should be opposed.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the approval of the senior
distinguished member on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been
proposed here by the gentleman from New York. I do so because I think
it would take us back to a regulation that makes little sense in
today's media world. And further, could deny many communities better
news and better information programming.
Under this amendment, in a market that has several newspapers and
perhaps seven or eight local television stations, only the smallest of
those newspapers would be prohibited from combination with the weakest
of those seven or eight television stations.
Since January of 2000, in more than 40 markets around the Nation,
television stations have either reduced or eliminated news and
information programming. Had it been possible for them to combine with
a local newspaper, perhaps, just perhaps, those unfortunate
consequences could have been avoided.
There are benefits to be obtained by permitting cross-ownerships. And
the example that I just noted, a common ownership of two struggling
properties could strengthen both properties keeping additional voices
alive in that particular market. An undeniable synergy
[[Page H7283]]
arises when television and newspaper, news gathering and reporting
resources are focused on a single event with an improvement in the
quality and depth of both the newspaper news product and the television
new product.
Studies by the Federal Communications Commission have found that
where cross-ownership has been permitted to continue under a
grandfather provision, local television news is better, and more of it
is provided by the cross-owned properties than by other local
television stations in the same markets; and that is ample proof of the
value of the synergies that are created when cross-owned properties
have been permitted.
The Federal Communications Commission, in my view, got the balance
right when it published its regulation on the cross-ownership rule in
June.
Under the FCC's new rule, combinations are only allowed between a
newspaper and a television station in the same local market when at the
end of that combination there will be a sufficient diversity of voices
remaining in that community to assure that many different and divergent
views will be expressed with regard to local news. That is the right
balance. Taking us back to a regulation that prohibits all combinations
under all circumstances I think is counter-productive.
And so today I would urge that we confirm the recent judgment of the
Federal Communications Commission and, in so doing, that we defeat this
amendment.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Clearly this is an issue that probably deserves more debate than it
will receive here. But I have also, like the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Boucher), my good friend from the committee, want to go back to
the past, 1995, when for the first time since 1935, we thought it was
time to update our telecommunications laws in this country. Hard to
believe that we could go for so long believing that technology or
society did not force us to review it, but we learned then just how
politically difficult change was.
We made some bold changes, and because of that many of us receive the
benefits of it today. We now have almost unlimited channels on cable.
It is new competition. We have an array of new products through
telecommunications that are the direct result of 1995 and congressional
action.
One additional piece of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, though, was
that we mandated that the FCC every 2 years would look at it. We never
wanted to play this catch-up game again.
Now, let me make this clear for my colleagues: In the current
appropriations bill we have already rolled back from 45 to 35 the
ownership cap. So the Hinchey amendment is not about 45 to 35. It is
about everything else that was in the FCC rule. When we talk about
cross-ownership, you need not look very far; as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) said, there are 40 news companies that were
grandfathered or received waivers that they concurrently have cross-
ownership.
In Tampa, Florida, you can find an outlet where Media General owns a
TV station and a newspaper. It is a model of what every other person
who potentially gets into dual ownership should look like. It brings
value to the community, and they have lived up to the waiver that they
were granted. There are benefits to the FCC rule.
I believe that it was important, it was essential that we roll back
from 45 to 35 the network ownership cap, if for no other reason than
there was not a compelling reason on their part why it should be
raised. But I felt strongly in 1995, when the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I came to this floor and, in
partnership, we rolled it then from 50 percent out of committee back to
35 percent after the committee decided to raise it in 1996 Telecom Act
from 25 to 35.
And it has worked pretty good. And the balance is correct. And we
have got the right checks and balances between independent stations.
We spend a lot of time on the definition of localism. I have heard a
lot of people mention localism today. I am not sure they had the in-
depth debate that we did about what does it mean, really, localism.
Well, the independent stations have the ability, and we made sure in
that act to look at the networks and say, I am not going to air that
because there is no value to the community that I serve. If we tip the
balance a little bit, will we dilute it enough that they will not have
guts enough to do it? I believe so. But to get there, you cannot do it
if you pass the Hinchey amendment.
I plead with my colleagues, if we want to roll back from 45 to 35,
vote against the Hinchey amendment. The FCC does great work. It does
not mean that we will always agree with everything they do. But
understand that they have to do it because this Congress told them to
do it every 2 years. They are obligated to review so that we do not
wait 50 years again before we update our laws in this country as it
relates to everything that they have oversight on.
Let me once again urge my colleagues, if Members support the rollback
from 45 to 35, vote against the Hinchey amendment because it is a
poison pill to our ability to maintain 35 percent for network
ownership.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to do something that I have not done in 29\1/2\
years. And I know that got everybody's attention. What could I possibly
have not done in 29\1/2\ years?
Well, 29\1/2\ years is how long I have known the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey). We were elected to the State assembly as so-called
``Watergate Babies'' in 1974. And I can still recall that that December
when we first went up to Albany, nearly froze to death in typical
Albany weather, I think I just lost a few Albany votes, and began a
friendship that has lasted all this time.
Of that 29\1/2\ years I have never either privately nor in a public
forum spoken in disagreement with anything he has said or proposed. And
technically, at the expense of sounding like a politician, technically
I do not disagree with him.
I do not disagree with the intent of his amendment. If it was up to
me, the Obey amendment would have been far-reaching. But I disagree
with his amendment today for the reasons that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others have expressed. Because it is my
understanding now, as I understand this issue and the politics of this
issue, that his desire to do the right thing would jeopardize that
which is in the bill already and that which we have accomplished.
Now, I told you a couple of seconds ago that it is the first time I
have disagreed with him. So I hope that he, as my brother, that he
understands that this is not the easiest statement for me to make. But
I know how much he believes in this issue. I know how much the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) believes in this issue. I know how
much I believe in this issue. And I know how much we have accomplished.
I have to tell you that I was in shock at the bipartisan vote in
committee for the Obey amendment. I was pleased. I was joyous. But I
was shocked.
I know that people who oppose this language, people out there in the
industry who are opposed to what we are about to do in this bill, are
trying to figure out how to undo it. And I am convinced, as so many
have said today, that the Hinchey amendment will allow many to get off
supporting what we have done and, in fact, find a reason or an excuse
to back off.
And so it is for that reason that I risk his slight wrath momentarily
as I look over those 29\1/2\ years and promise the gentleman that I
probably will never disagree with him again, but I have to rise in
opposition to this amendment at this time; and I would hope that
Members see it that way and vote against it.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's
(Mr. Hinchey) amendment. I also opposed the gentleman from Wisconsin's
(Mr. Obey) amendment.
I want to cite two examples of companies that I think have been very
good companies, good corporate citizens, companies that have done a
good job in their communities. I know that
[[Page H7284]]
those of us in politics, and I am sure every Member, all 435, have a
gripe about a television station. I do, too. Probably about a radio
station. Probably a gripe with a newspaper. We all do.
But the idea that we are going to offer an amendment to somehow
corral a decision or overturn a decision that was made by the FCC, I
think is not right.
{time} 1700
I represent Adams County in Illinois where Quincy, Illinois, is the
largest community and there is a family-owned newspaper there. The
Oakley family owns the newspaper, and they own at least one television
station in that town and several other television stations around the
country; and they are a good corporate citizen, and they do not dictate
policy from one station to another. They do not dictate policy from
their newspaper to their television stations. So I guess they are the
exception to the rule that one can own a newspaper and own a television
station, several television stations, and not dictate policy and still
be a good corporate citizen.
The classic example, though, is the Tribune Company. The Tribune
Company has been in operation for 150 years. It operates in 12 markets,
and it owns the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago
Tribune, Newsday. It owns Channel 9 and many other television stations,
and the notion that they try and dictate policy or dictate opinion I
think is not accurate. I know that they have established themselves as
one of the best corporate citizens, certainly in Chicago and in many
other communities.
So the idea that we are going to have an amendment to overturn a
decision that was made by the FCC because somebody does not like it or
that television stations are too big or might dictate policy, I think,
is not a true reflection of at least two I know, one in Quincy,
Illinois, and one in Chicago, that has many outlets in many different
places.
For that reason, I wish we could have defeated the Obey amendment,
which we did not; but I hope we can defeat the Hinchey amendment which
is even worse.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Committee will rise
informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble) assumed the Chair.
____________________