[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7284-H7311]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise to oppose the amendment, and I agree with much of the 
substance of this amendment; but I am concerned about the provisions 
with regard to newspapers.
  Mr. Chairman, there used to be a time in every major city in America 
where we had three, four, five vibrant newspapers. Today, what we are 
seeing is fewer and fewer newspapers across the country. We are seeing 
circulation of newspapers going down and the economic viability of 
newspapers reduced dramatically because of the inability of newspapers 
to compete economically.
  I know something about this because my father worked at the local 
newspaper in my hometown for 43 years. He was not the publisher. He was 
not the editor. He was not even a reporter. He punched a clock as 
compositor for 43 years, and that local newspaper meant a lot to our 
community.
  I believe that the provisions regarding cross-ownership for 
newspapers would do serious harm to the financial viability of local 
newspapers with disastrous consequences for journalism. In a world 
where 24-hour cable news and Internet have made news sources for 
information widely available, we still depend, and our democracy 
depends, upon newspapers to provide high-quality, in-depth coverage of 
local news events; but with the emergence of so many alternative 
sources of news and entertainment, newspapers are struggling to retain 
advertisers who want to reach a high-quality, fragmented audience of 
consumers.
  Newspapers are getting hit from both directions because they are 
losing circulation, viewers, and advertisers to broadcasters and major 
news media. The FCC's decision to relax the cross-ownership rules with 
regard to newspapers was based on extensive evidence showing that when 
newspapers are allowed to participate in local broadcasting, consumers 
benefit.
  Daily newspapers almost always have the most extensive and 
sophisticated news-gathering apparatus in their circulation area. So 
this should not be surprising. Newspapers have been used in classrooms 
across America to discuss local issues. So when co-owned broadcast 
stations are able to draw on the depth and breadth of newspaper 
expertise, the stations can produce better local news programming; and 
when newspapers make their pitch to advertisers, they can say that they 
reach consumers across their circulation area through radio or, in some 
instances, TV ads as well as print.
  The FCC did not have to guess what would happen with the quality of 
local news under lax cross-ownership rules with regard to newspapers. 
Several local newspaper/broadcast combinations have been in operation 
since the 1970s under the grandfather rules. This experience shows that 
broadcast stations, co-owned with daily newspapers, are offering better 
local news and more of it.
  Studies by both media owners and independent entities agree on these 
benefits. For example, a 5-year study by the Project for Excellence in 
Journalism at Columbia University, found that co-owned stations were 
more likely to do stories focused on important community issues and 
were more likely to provide a wide mix of opinion. Other studies show 
that existing newspaper/broadcast combinations do not coordinate the 
editorial views they express on important public issues.
  The health of daily newspapers across this country is absolutely 
critical to the functioning of our democracy because newspapers offer 
by far the most extensive and consistent coverage of local political 
issues and public policy issues. That is why I believe the FCC's 
decision to allow more newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership is good 
public policy.
  While I agree with many of the provisions in this particular 
amendment and also the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment, 
the relaxation of a cross-ownership ban for newspapers will serve the 
public interest by fostering better newspapers and information; and I 
base that on my experience in dealing with local newspapers in my own 
district and my own family's involvement in 43 years.
  I might also add, since there have been other issues such as 
overtime, when my father worked as an hourly employee for 43 years 
punching a time clock every day, whether or not we took a vacation that 
summer was determined by his ability to earn overtime at that 
newspaper. Fortunately, he was able to make the overtime payments 
because of the ability of that newspaper to provide a quality of life 
for the employees.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment for the 
simple reason that a monopoly of ideas is ultimately more destructive 
to American democracy than even a monopoly of money; and the American 
people understand this amendment should pass for two reasons, one 
philosophical and one practical. Let me address the philosophical one 
first.
  In the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, ``Were it left to me to 
decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or 
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to 
prefer the latter,'' the overwhelming majority of American people have 
an understanding in their gut and in their bones and in their heads 
that if we loosen the rules on media consolidation, we will

[[Page H7285]]

get more media consolidation. It is not rocket science.
  So let me address the practical issue that I have heard addressed on 
this floor today and argued on this floor that somehow if we vote for 
this amendment it actually means we are going to reduce the remedy we 
get against the FCC. Let me debunk that argument for this reason.
  It is based on two faulty assumptions. It is based on the assumption 
the President will veto this bill if we give Americans what they want, 
which is less consolidation in the media. The President might have said 
that today, some of his political advisers may have said that today; 
but when this bill gets to the White House desk, that e-mail account 
and Web site of the White House is going to melt down. They are going 
to have to double the number of e-mails that they can recover, and the 
FCC, when they did this, they thought this would just go kind of 
quietly in the night. That is why they had one hearing in Virginia for 
the whole country about this issue. They thought they would just sneak 
this by them.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened when the American people 
found out about this. The U.S. Senate, or the other chamber, very 
quickly understood that it had to happen, the commerce committee had a 
good vote moving in this direction, and now it is up to my colleagues 
and me to keep this ball rolling. We do not know how far this ball is 
going to go unless we get the message to the American people; and let 
me suggest to my colleagues, that ball is going to go a lot further, 
which is total repeal of the FCC going backwards.
  I am not alone in this, and I want to make sure the Members in this 
Chamber know this is just not a good governing issue. It is not just a 
good government issue. It is not just a consumers federation.
  The labor community of the United States of America understands the 
consolidation of media voices is not good for democracy. That is why 
the Communication Workers of America are supporting this amendment. The 
Department of Professional Employees are supporting this amendment. The 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are supporting this 
amendment. The Newspaper Guild is supporting this amendment. The people 
support this amendment.
  So it is our job to push the envelope here. It is our job to make 
sure this does not get swept under the radar screen, and let me tell my 
colleagues why that is important.
  These consolidation rules go much further than repealing the Sherman 
Antitrust Act. They allow consolidation that will increase the 
concentration over 20 times the level of local market control of what 
would trigger a Sherman Antitrust Act investigation. That is in a one-
newspaper town. In a two-newspaper town, mergers allowed under this 
rule, without this amendment, would increase concentration nine times 
the level of concentration that would trigger antitrust concern.
  I am standing here to say that our scrutiny of a monopoly of ideas 
should be every bit as vigorous as a scrutiny of a monopoly of money; 
and that is the reason we need to, in fact, pass this amendment.
  I have heard it argued today that there is a lot of new channels, 
there is Internet Web sites, there is new cable channels and that is 
enough. To me, it is a little bit like saying we will just have sort of 
20 hoses, we have got all these new hoses to give you water, but then 
you screw the hoses all into the same faucet, which is the corporate 
board of governors who control these markets, and that is the promise 
you effect, that we have got to guard against by, in fact, passing this 
amendment.
  I will just make one closing comment if I can of those who may be 
thinking about this or my colleagues. I will say one thing that I think 
all of us as elected officials understand. This started as a very 
quiet, little modest regulatory issue; but it has turned into a 
firestorm of criticism, and there are two tsunamis. One has already 
washed over Congress, and that is the Do Not Call list. That finally 
got Congress' attention. The second one is this amendment. My 
colleagues vote against this amendment, they are going to have people 
with pitch forks and torches in front of their Chamber arguing that 
they should not get in bed with those who want consolidation of this 
industry.
  Let us push the envelope and fight back for this amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Price amendment, and I 
would like to speak to the substance of this amendment. It promotes 
diversity by preserving existing limitations on media ownership. It 
actually promotes democracy.
  The recent FCC decision to adopt new broadcast ownership rules 
raising the national television ownership rules undermines the 
fundamental principle of diversity, fair play, competition, and 
exchange of ideas. It really does run counter to our notion of freedom 
of the press, the right to free expression, the right to be heard.
  The overwhelming public reaction against this FCC move dramatically 
illustrates the very diversity in America that this ruling circumvents.

                              {time}  1715

  Groups as wide ranging as Common Cause and the National Rifle 
Association, the National Organization for Women, in fact, the National 
Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters actually support this 
amendment. All of these groups oppose this step toward greater 
monopolization of the Nation's airwaves.
  If we fail to take action, it is possible that a single company could 
own a newspaper, a television station, and a local radio station. Do we 
want all local news controlled by one company now that is possible 
under the new FCC rules? These few monopolies would shut down the views 
and voices of millions of Americans.
  Another likely result of this rule change will be the further 
silencing of minority voices. According to recent surveys, minorities 
own less than 2 percent of the country's licensed television stations 
and only 4 percent of the commercial AM and FM stations. These minority 
owners and other independent operators are in grave danger of being 
trampled on by the accelerated expansion of media conglomerates.
  Millions of Americans have contacted the FCC to express their 
disapproval of raising the limits on media ownership. This amendment 
addresses all of these very important concerns. It prevents the 
implementation of this unwise and unsound rule change.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this rule, which this amendment would address, in my 
opinion is perhaps the most radical usurpation of the public interest 
in the history of regulation. But then again, the head of the FCC does 
not believe in regulation nor does he believe in public interest.
  To quote him, he has called regulation ``the oppressor.'' And when 
asked about public interest, he said he has no idea. ``It is an empty 
vessel in which people pour whatever their preconceived views or biases 
are.''
  And he went on to say, ``The night after I was sworn in as a 
commissioner,'' this is Michael Powell, the Chair of the Federal 
Communications Commission, ``I waited for a visit from the angel of 
public interest, I waited all night, but she did not come.'' So his 
conclusion is, if you believe in markets, part of the right price is 
determined by the give-and-take of consumers and producers, and ``Thou 
shalt not regulate,'' and that, in fact, is what he has done here.
  Now, there is substantial agreement on this side of the aisle that 
what he has done is an extraordinary blow to our system in the United 
States of America, our system of governance of our democratic republic. 
But there is some disagreement over the tactics on how we fight back. 
Considering the fact that the Republicans control both Houses of 
Congress and the White House, I believe that we need to send the 
strongest possible message, and this amendment would, thus far, absent 
adoption of the Dingell legislation, which I believe the Speaker of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and others will never 
allow to come to the floor of the House, but absent that, this is the 
strongest statement that we could send so far. We would be standing 
with more than 400,000 Americans who commented against this rule.

[[Page H7286]]

  Now, the chairman of the committee got up to say, well, the benefits 
of this flow to the public, but he did not go on to say, they just do 
not realize it. Because almost every person who testified on the most-
commented-upon rule-making in the history of the United States of 
America said ``no.'' ``No.''
  There was one hearing held in the distant realm of Virginia. That is 
how much public scrutiny this rule received. Why did it receive so 
little public scrutiny? Because they knew that more than 400,000 people 
would oppose it had they only known about it ahead of time.
  Now we are hearing about a lot of red herrings. This place kind of 
smells a little bit. The waivers will go away. No, the waivers are 
preexisting in this rule. The waivers will not go away. They want to 
help the little guys that are doing good things with the waivers. That 
is the only reason they are supporting Michael Powell and total 
rollback of public interest and the total collapse of any idea of 
diverse media in this country and the total concentration of this 
system.
  No, they are really for the little guys and the waivers and the 
exceptions and the grandfathers, and that is why we are really here.
  Well, no, that is not why we are really here. We are really here 
because the big money and the big interests want to own it all. It will 
be great, the day we can go anywhere in America, turn on the tube, 
watch a local station and we will see exactly the same thing we would 
have seen at home. It will purport to provide local news.
  Some people are getting puzzled when they see what is considered to 
be local news under the current system, which is already concentrated 
enough, which has nothing to do with where they live. Imagine what it 
will be like when it is totally one or two or three big companies 
dictating all the content across all the country, and not only the 
content of television but the content of newspapers and radio. It will 
be great. We will not have to be confused anymore by conflicting 
opinions.
  God forbid we should even begin to discuss the concepts of fairness, 
which stood as the rule of this land for nearly three-quarters of a 
century under which we had a vibrant democracy. Fairness. Now it is 
whoever can own it can say whatever they want and the hell with 
fairness.
  We do not have to have fairness. We do not have to have diversity of 
opinion. We afford it, we bought it, we can say what we want, we can 
exclude who we want, we can discriminate against the groups that we do 
not like that say things we do not like about our President or about 
anything else we disagree with.
  That is the vision of Michael Powell and the majority in this House. 
That is the system they want.
  That is wrong. It is wrong whether in the majority or the minority. 
It is wrong for the future of our Nation.
  So, please, support this amendment. Send the strongest message 
possible. And if this passes by a big margin, if the worst thing that 
could happen in the conference committee with the Senate is that we 
bargain back a little bit toward the good work done by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), then, okay, that is the best we can do. I 
would love to see the President put in a position to have to veto 
something so much in the public interest that people care so much 
about.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment, 
which is, in many ways, consistent with legislation that I introduced 
which has 90 cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I think Thomas Jefferson, Tom Payne, James Madison, and 
some of the other Founding Fathers of our country understood the issue 
that we are discussing today very well.
  It is a problem in our society that in industry after industry fewer 
and fewer large corporations control those industries. I think that is 
a very serious economic problem for this country. But it is a very 
different and even much more serious problem when a handful of large 
corporations control what the American people see, hear and read.
  This is not just an economic problem. This is a problem that gets to 
the root of American democracy.
  How can we vote intelligently? How can we come to reasonable 
positions on all of the important issues facing America unless we hear 
a diverse point of view?
  I think most Americans understand that there is something profoundly 
wrong. For example, one example, in a Nation which is politically 
divided, where Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, where if you 
turn on talk radio in America the only debate that you hear on 
corporate radio is a debate between the right wing and the extreme 
right wing. That is not, in my view, an accident.
  I think that many Americans understand that some of the most 
important issues facing our country, the devastating loss of 
manufacturing jobs, the fact that the minimum wage has not been raised 
in many, many years, the fact that we have the most unfair distribution 
of wealth and income of any major country, the fact that we are the 
only major nation on Earth that does not have a national health care 
program, the fact that we have so little discussion about these 
important issues certainly is related to the fact that the people who 
own our television industry are, without exception, major multinational 
corporations.
  We have General Electric owning NBC, Disney owning ABC, Viacom owning 
CBS, the right-wing millionaire Rupert Murdock owning Fox, Time Warner 
owning CNN. I would remind Members of Congress never to forget that in 
the waning days of the authoritarian Soviet Union, there was not just 
one television station or one radio station or one newspaper, there 
were hundreds of radio stations and television stations and magazines 
and newspapers. The only problem was that all of that media was 
controlled by either the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the 
Government of the Soviet Union.
  So the idea that we have many, many newspapers or magazines or cable 
television stations is meaningless when we understand that virtually 
all of them are owned by a handful of large corporations who have 
enormous conflicts of interest.
  What the Hinchey amendment is saying, and I think the overwhelming 
majority of Americans agree with him, is that it will be a very 
dangerous day in this country when people who live in midsize cities 
find that one company owns their television station and their radio 
station and their local newspaper.
  Is that, my friends, what American democracy is supposed to be about? 
I think most of us think that it is not.
  Now, I have heard some discussion about political tactics, about how 
dangerous it would be to pass this amendment. I would suggest that 
those people who are talking that language are playing inside-the-
Beltway baseball and they are forgetting about the heat and the passion 
and the concern that tens of millions of people on the outside feel 
about this issue.
  I can only tell you of my own experience in Vermont. We held a town 
meeting with Michael Copps of the FCC, and 600 people came out. We held 
another meeting where 400 people came out. And I believe that this 
feeling of concern about growing media consolidation exists all over 
the country. When the FCC allowed for people's opinion to come forward, 
750,000 Americans contacted the FCC and 99 percent said, do not go 
forward with more media consolidation.
  In my own city of Burlington, we used to have a number of radio 
stations reporting local news. Today there is one. Let us support the 
Hinchey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that in substance I agree with 
virtually every word the gentleman just said. He is coming from exactly 
the right place.
  Here is my tactical problem. I want this bill to get 290 votes, so 
that when the White House looks at it, it knows

[[Page H7287]]

that there are enough votes here to override the veto, if they are ill-
advised enough to veto the bill over this provision. And it is my 
considered judgment that if the Hinchey amendment passes, that there 
will be significant additional numbers of people who will vote against 
this bill, and that means we will send exactly the reverse signal.
  So all I want to say is, I agree with where the gentleman is coming 
from, we simply have a different tactical judgment about how to get 
there. I think we need a two-step process and the gentleman wants one.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me express my 
disagreement with my good friend, because let me tell him this. I want 
the President of the United States to go in front of the national media 
and say, I am vetoing this bill because I believe in more media 
consolidation. I think fewer large corporations should control what we 
see, hear, and read. I want the President of the United States to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think he is smart enough not to do that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Federal Communications Act of 1934 mandated that the electronic 
broadcasting industry operate in the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity. The idea behind the FCC Act of 1934 was that we the people 
own the airwaves and that we grant a license for people to operate in 
the public interest, but that the first claim on those airwaves belongs 
to the people.

                              {time}  1730

  How far we have come in America, to a position where we the people 
are begging corporate broadcast interests to allow us the right to free 
speech. How far we have come in America, to a condition where the 
Federal Communications Commission, which was created to make sure that 
the public interest is represented, instead has been captured by the 
very industry they are to regulate. It is a matter of public record. 
Indeed, it has been recorded by the Center for Public Integrity which 
examined the travel records of FCC employees that they have accepted 
over a period of 8 years 2,500 trips costing nearly $2.8 million and 
that these trips were paid for by telecommunications and broadcast 
industries which are regulated by the FCC. This on top of the trips 
that the taxpayers paid for.
  There is no question that the Federal Communications Commission, 
which has been created to represent the public interest, represents 
instead the private interest. And so then the public's right to the 
airwaves, to control of the airwaves, and to access to the airwaves 
becomes diminished, damaged, and degraded by a system which has now 
been captured by media corporations. This then must be a cause of great 
debate in our democracy because we understand as wealth concentrates in 
fewer and fewer hands there is less democracy, and we understand as 
concentration in the media occurs and there are fewer and fewer 
independent media outlets, it is to the detriment of our democracy, it 
is a lessening of freedom of speech in our Nation.
  If we are to remain one Nation, we cannot be one Nation and at the 
same time have one broadcast power, a private one. We have to ensure 
that there is a multiplicity of media outlets. We must ensure that the 
media responds to the public interest. We must regain what it truly 
means to have a public spirited debate in a democracy which can only 
occur if there are significant numbers of outlets in the media and that 
each community has the opportunity to have a balance of media 
interests.
  When our Constitution was established and when our Bill of Rights was 
set in motion establishing freedom of speech, our founders did not 
countenance that freedom of the press would belong to the man who owns 
one. Our founders did not countenance that freedom of broadcast media 
or freedom of speech would belong to the broadcast media. The Hinchey 
amendment seeks to strike once again a balance on behalf of the public 
interest to set aside the FCC's action which resulted in a stunning 
ruling which permitted the country's largest media conglomerates to 
achieve a level of multiple ownership that could only be said to be 
totally against the interest of our democracy.
  We stand here every day in debating the great questions of our time. 
How often those questions receive attention is a matter of the private 
interest. We need to regain the public interest here. That is why this 
amendment achieves a great amount of importance. The public needs to 
remember once again that they are ultimately the owners of the 
airwaves, that the airwaves do not belong to corporations. They do not 
have any primary right to those airwaves. Those airwaves are the 
product of a free Nation and those airwaves should always be regulated 
in the public interest. They are not being regulated in the public 
interest, and it is only this Congress which can rescue the public 
interest.
  Vote for the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I have served on the telecommunications subcommittee for 27 years, 
and I can tell you that not only is the decision made by the Federal 
Communications Commission in this area of media consolidation the worst 
decision made during my 27 years overseeing them, it is the worst 
decision ever made by the Federal Communications Commission. Ever. 
First of all, Chairman Powell decided to have one public hearing, one, 
on an issue that goes to the fundamental question of what is the 
relationship between the American public and the media while they were 
considering the changes in 75 years of laws.
  The public furor is totally understandable. And Congress in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee with jurisdiction over 
this issue, we have yet to have a hearing on this issue. What did the 
FCC decide? Did it decide that they were going to expand the rules so 
that one newspaper could be owned by one television station? No. Did 
they decide that one cable company could own four radio stations in one 
community and expand the rules that way? No. Here is what they decided. 
Listen to this, ladies and gentlemen. Listen to the worst decision ever 
made by the Federal Communications Commission. In the largest 
metropolitan media areas where many, many of us come from, here is what 
is now possible. One company in your hometown, your metropolitan area, 
can own three television stations, three, in your hometown; eight radio 
stations at the same time; the biggest newspaper in town even if it is 
the only newspaper in town at the same time; and the entire cable 
system in your hometown even if it includes the all-news channel on 
cable plus all of the Internet news Web sites that attach to all of 
those sites.
  So listen again, my friends. The FCC has decided in your hometown 
that one company can own three TV stations, eight radio stations, the 
only newspaper in town, and the entire cable system including the all-
news cable channel. That is absurd. That is crazy. They did not decide 
that one company can own one TV station and one newspaper. No. That is 
not what this debate is about. If they had been more tailored, if they 
had been more restrictive, if they had expanded on some commonsense 
basis, we would not be out here right now. They did not do that. Every 
single industry that came in and asked them for something, they said 
``yes'' to.
  I am the author, in 1995, with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr) and Sonny Montgomery, of the 35 percent rule. That is my 
amendment here. And so I am glad that that is included in the 
appropriations bill. But I think everyone should understand the 
consequences of what the FCC is doing and it is coming to your hometown 
soon. It just goes too far. No one should have that kind of power. The 
kind of power that one company is now going to have in your hometown 
will make Citizen Kane look like an underachiever. It is too much in 
one company at one time. It has to be tailored.
  I am glad that this 35 percent rule was included. I think it is 
important that it was included. It is essential in having a better 
balance between the networks and the individual communities across the 
country. And I understand the debate which is going on as to what is 
the best tactical way of proceeding from here, and I have to respect 
the incredibly great work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

[[Page H7288]]

Obey) did and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) in getting the language in on the 35 percent rule. 
It is very important. Very important. But there are many other very 
important issues as well, and I outlined the worst-case scenario; and 
it is now the law, with one hearing, one hearing held in Richmond, 
Virginia, where all the lobbyists from Washington just got on the train 
and went down there for a day.
  Personally, I am going to vote for the Hinchey amendment; but I hope 
you all understand that while it may not pass today that there are big 
stakes that America is facing as this change is made in American life.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. 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 New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. 13 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to engage in negotiations respecting a trade 
     agreement with another country which creates or expands a 
     nonimmigrant visa category authorizing the temporary entry of 
     professionals into the United States.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer 
this amendment. I am going to do something slightly unusual and simply 
read it since it is short and it does describe what it does. It says, 
``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to engage in 
negotiations respecting a trade agreement with another country which 
creates or expands a nonimmigrant visa category authorizing the 
temporary entry of professionals into the United States.''
  Mr. Chairman, this issue arises out of our U.S. Trade 
Representative's including nonimmigration status, created a whole new 
category; it was a ``W'' category that now we have changed into H-1Bs. 
It is being included now in at least discussions in other trade 
agreements across Central and South America. And so I rise today to 
offer an amendment to prevent the United States Trade Representative 
from negotiating changes to U.S. immigration law in trade agreements 
with other countries. Our Constitution in article 1, section 8, gives 
Congress, not the U.S. Trade Representative, plenary power over 
immigration.
  Immigration policy does not belong in free trade agreements. My 
amendment provides that none of the funds appropriated by the bill may 
be used by the United States Trade Representative to negotiate trade 
agreements which create or expand a nonimmigrant visa category 
authorizing the temporary entry of professionals into the United 
States.
  Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative has negotiated free trade 
agreements which contain immigration provisions that infringe upon the 
plenary power of Congress over immigration matters. The first draft of 
the implementing legislation for the Chile and Singapore free trade 
agreements included the creation of a new ``W'' category for visas for 
professional workers. Only after the Trade Representative received 
serious resistance from the Committee on the Judiciary did they agree 
to slightly change the immigration provisions to accommodate some, but 
not all, of the concerns of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The inclusion of immigration provisions in the Chile and Singapore 
agreements is especially troubling since the agreements will likely be 
used as a template for future free trade agreements, including those 
with Central America, Southern Africa, Australia, Morocco and others. 
The U.S. Trade Representative has negotiated these immigration 
provisions without any authority or decision to do so from Congress. 
With my amendment, Congress can reassert congressional primacy over 
immigration law.
  The United States Trade Representative's practice of proposing new 
immigration law in the context of bilateral or multilateral trade 
negotiations usurps Congress' constitutional responsibility for 
immigration law. Trade Promotion Authority eliminates our ability to 
amend such proposals, taking the plenary power over immigration out of 
the hands of Congress. We cannot allow this to continue and must 
prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from agreeing to include 
immigration provisions in trade agreements.
  The practice of including immigration provisions that usurp 
congressional authority is not limited to the Chile and Singapore trade 
agreements. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services both included such provisions. In NAFTA, 
the Clinton administration USTR agreed to a limitless professional 
worker visa category containing not even a prevailing wage requirement. 
In GATS, the USTR divested from future Congresses the ability to make 
possibly crucial modifications to the H-1B visa program.
  I am not opposed to free trade agreements. In fact, I am a free 
trader. We need to make trade agreements with other countries, for 
example, to increase our agriculture exports. However, the Trade 
Representative does not need to change immigration law to achieve that 
goal. As Members of Congress, we often disagree as to what our 
immigration policy should be, but we are all united in the belief that 
the responsibility for crafting an immigration policy belongs to 
Congress, not the executive branch; and we take our duty seriously.
  I ask Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I understand 
the gentleman from Iowa is going to withdraw the amendment, and I 
appreciate that; but I think Members ought to understand that the 
gentleman raises a very, very valid and very, very important point. I 
voted for Fast Track. I voted for it without the administration asking 
me to vote for it. But he makes a very valid point, so I hope someone 
from the Trade Representative's Office is listening to what the 
gentleman is trying to say here.
  We have a 6.4 percent unemployment rate in the country; and there are 
many of these workers, moms and dads, who desperately want to return to 
work. So I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Iowa is going 
to withdraw it. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is going 
to address the amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  But the Trade Representative's Office ought to be paying attention to 
the King amendment and paying attention to what the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) is saying, or else I think this issue will be dealt with 
later on.
  So I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa. The international mobility of business professionals has become 
an increasingly important aspect of our competitive markets for both 
suppliers and consumers. Facilitating the movement of professionals 
allows trade partners to more efficiently provide each other with 
services such as architecture, engineering, consulting, and 
construction. TPA establishes that the principal negotiating objective 
regarding trade in services is to reduce or eliminate barriers to 
international trade in services.
  Each trade negotiation the United States enters, like Chile and 
Singapore, is approached individually to determine if the conclusion of 
a temporary entry chapter will benefit U.S. trade in services, and if 
so, whether a section on temporary entry of professionals is needed in 
the agreement.
  The Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain provisions 
allowing for the temporary entry of business professionals into the 
other party to facilitate trade in services.

[[Page H7289]]

  This amendment would potentially limit our ability to discuss our 
current obligations under NAFTA, Chile and Singapore.
  This amendment would also encourage other industries that would like 
their issues taken off the table in future negotiations to offer 
amendments.
  The administration worked diligently to address concerns on temporary 
entry in the Singapore and Chile FTA, and it is very sensitive to 
Members' concerns regarding the inclusion of temporary entry provisions 
in free trade agreements.
  USTR inherited a tradition of including such temporary entry 
provisions in trade agreements from prior administrations. These 
provisions are used to facilitate trade in services which is a 
predominant economic interest in the U.S.
  My experience with Ambassador Zoellick is that he is very sensitive 
and responsive to congressional concerns, and I am confident that he 
will be in this regard as well.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  Just a few quick points to make on the remarks made by the gentleman. 
First of all, it is Congress' authority to establish immigration 
policy, and when we open up and provide that opportunity to the U.S. 
Trade Representative to inject immigration issues into any and all 
trade agreements that they might make, that is voluntarily giving up 
congressional authority that is constitutionally vested in the United 
States Congress.
  We have a responsibility to defend our oath of office, which is to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States; and once we move outside 
of that, our Founding Fathers knew better. That is why they put that in 
the Constitution.
  We are not allowed to amend a trade agreement. So by not being 
allowed to amend a trade agreement, that means that they can inject 
immigration issues into a trade agreement and those of us who believe 
in free trade, but do not believe that we should set up the authority 
with a Trade Representative to bring in any limit of immigration, that 
puts us in a position of having to decide, devil's choice, are we for 
the trade or are we against immigration policy?
  So it is Congress' authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 103, after line 26, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and me supports the rights of 
former American prisoners of war who were captured at the fall of 
Bataan, the Philippines, in 1942. They were used as slave labor by 
Japanese corporations during the rest of the Second World War.
  These heroes survived the Bataan Death March only to be transported 
to Japan and elsewhere in infamous death ships. They were then forced 
to labor for Japanese corporations under the most horrendous 
circumstances one can imagine. Private employees of these corporations 
tortured and physically abused our American POWs while the corporations 
withheld essential medical care and even the most minimal amount of 
food. All of this, and when it was over, they were not even permitted 
to be compensated by the Japanese corporations that used them as slave 
labor.
  Perhaps the worst part of this nightmare is that these American 
heroes have been thwarted in their efforts to secure for themselves 
just compensation and an apology, and they are being thwarted by our 
own State Department, which claims they have no right to sue.
  My amendment to H.R. 2799 would prohibit any funds in the act from 
being used by the United States Government to prevent our POWs from 
seeking a fair hearing in civil court against the Japanese companies 
that used them as slave labor.
  We are told, of course, that if the American POWs seek this 
compensation from these Japanese corporations, that it would be an 
insult to the corporate leaders in Japan who led these corporations or 
an insult to the Japanese people. Ironically, even while we are being 
told this, the Japanese have extended favorable reparation terms to 
other victims from other countries, and they continue to settle war 
claims for people of other countries. But, of course, those other 
countries have their governments fighting for the rights of their 
people rather than trying to undermine the rights of their greatest 
heroes.
  Unfortunately, to date, our State Department continues to argue in 
court against our POWs, touting a ridiculously restrictive reading of 
the peace treaty between the United States and Japan. In that, our 
State Department is now betraying our own POWs in order to protect 
Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor during the war. If 
our State Department is doing that, it is wrong; and it is therefore up 
to this Congress to pass this bill to force our State Department to get 
out of the way of our POWs and let them have their day in court, 
because every time our POWs come forth to sue these Japanese 
corporations, our State Department is there arguing against them and 
tearing down their arguments.
  This is not the first time that we have taken on this issue to try to 
prevent this from happening to our American heroes. On July 18 of 2001, 
this amendment passed in the House with a resounding vote of 395 to 33. 
It was also agreed to on September 10, 2001, in identical form by a 
majority in the United States Senate.
  It is a disgrace that this amendment, after having been approved by 
both Houses of Congress in identical terms, was pulled out of the bill 
and did not make it into the conference report; thus, behind closed 
doors, our POWs were again betrayed.
  Is this a democracy where if a majority of people in both Houses vote 
for something, it does not stay in the bill, that someone can just take 
it out? No. I think that we have got to try to correct this situation 
now; and if we stand up today, we send a message that this kind of 
behavior, making these kind of decisions behind closed doors, is 
unacceptable. And what better issue to draw the line against this 
practice than in protecting the rights of some of America's greatest 
heroes?
  I would hope that we can once again put restrictions into this bill 
that will prevent the State Department from using any of these funds 
that we authorize or appropriate today to prevent our own POWs from 
suing Japanese corporations that used them as slave labor during the 
Second World War.
  Which side are we on? It comes down to that. Which side are we on? On 
the side of America's greatest heroes or are we more concerned with the 
sensibilities of big Japanese corporations who used our heroes as 
slaves?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Otter:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Section . None of the funds made available in this act may 
     be used to seek a delay under Section 3103a(b) of title 18 
     United States Code.


[[Page H7290]]


  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago when the formulation of 
this great republic was being put together, John Stuart Mill sat down 
and probably put the essence of this government in writing better than 
anyone could. ``A people,'' he said, ``may prefer a free government, 
but if from indolence or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public 
spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; 
if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if by 
momentary discouragement or temporary panic, they can be deluded by the 
artifices used to cheat them out of it; or if in a fit of enthusiasm 
for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the 
feet of even a great man, in all these cases, they are more or less 
unfit for liberty. And though it may have been to their good to have 
had it for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it.''
  The United States PATRIOT Act was well intentioned, Mr. Chairman, 
especially during a time of uncertainty and panic. However, now we have 
had a chance to step back and examine it objectively. The legislation 
deserves serious reevaluation. While I agree with some of the new 
powers granted to the Federal law enforcement authorities that may be, 
and I stress ``may be,'' necessary, many more are unjustified and are 
dangerously undermining our civil liberties.
  We have the opportunity to revisit these sections of the USA PATRIOT 
Act and to correct these mistakes from those first frenzied weeks after 
September 11, 2001.
  One provision, section 213, allows delayed notification of the 
execution of a search warrant. It authorizes no-knock searches of 
private residences, our homes, either physically or electronically. By 
putting off notice of the execution of a warrant, even delaying it 
indefinitely, section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act prevents people, or 
even their attorneys, from reviewing the warrant for correctness in 
legalities.
  These ``sneak and peek'' searches give the government the power to 
repeatedly search a private residence without informing the residents 
that he or she is the target of an investigation. Not only does this 
provision allow the seizure of personal property and business records 
without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search 
warrants and allows the CIA and the NSA to operate domestically.
  American citizens, whom the government has pledged to protect from 
terrorist activities, now find themselves the victims of the very 
weapon designed to uproot their enemies.
  It is in defense of these freedoms that I offer this amendment today 
to the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2004 bill. This 
amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to carry out section 
213 of the USA PATRIOT Act as signed into law on October 26, 2001. 
Through the passage of this amendment, Americans would have reinstated 
a different kind of security, one giving them renewed confidence in 
their government in tirelessly protecting their individual freedom from 
unjustified and unnecessary intrusion.
  Being secure at the expense of our freedom is no real security. Like 
many Idahoans who have come to me with their concerns about the USA 
PATRIOT Act and in passionate defense of their freedoms, we must 
continue to examine our actions to correct our mistakes to guard 
against the apathy or the indifference to safeguarding our liberties.
  To these Federal agencies, it is a house, it is a building, it is a 
business; but to us, Mr. Chairman, it is our homes, and there is 
nothing more sacred than homes in America because it is the foundation 
on which we build our families. It is the arsenal in which the virtue 
and hope of every generation resides, and it is the fundamental primer 
of any free people.

                              {time}  1800

  We can, with the adoption of this first alteration to the PATRIOT 
Act, begin the reclamation of our title of a Nation as a people fit for 
liberty.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
without really knowing completely what it does. Let me just say if 
anyone from the Justice Department is listening, is there an office of 
legislative counsel down there who can give opinions? Hello, is there a 
policy office down there?
  This would be a mistake, though. We are amending the PATRIOT Act, 
this is not an appropriations issue, on the floor of the House. The 
gentleman may very well be right, and he seems to have pretty good 
information, but he may not be. So for us to amend the PATRIOT Act in 
this bill, I think would be a mistake.
  This is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. This 
is clearly for the authorizers; this is clearly for the Department of 
Justice to come up and sit down with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Otter) and discuss this with him. This is clearly for the legislative 
counsel of the Department of Justice to address.
  The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may very well be right. The 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may not be right. But undoing a 
statute with a funding limitation at 6 o'clock at night without knowing 
what the ramifications are is not really the way to legislate.
  So because of that, not because the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) 
is wrong, I want to stress again he may very well be right; and then 
again, I want to stress he may not be, but I also want to stress that 
the Department of Justice is AWOL on this issue with regard to coming 
and sharing with the Congress, and with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Otter), some of the concerns. But in an appropriations bill, I do not 
think it would be appropriate to amend the PATRIOT Act, without having 
extensive and deep debate.
  So with that, I oppose the amendment. I would be glad, as I said, to 
set up meetings, should this amendment fail, with the Justice 
Department and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) so we can get to 
the bottom, to make sure whether what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Otter) said is true or not true.
  With that, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would 
refer the gentleman to my earlier comments about civil liberties and 
the issues which are contained within the PATRIOT Act.
  I may not totally end up on the side of disagreeing with the 
gentleman once some more research is done. My problem with the 
amendment is that lately we have been seeing a lot of amendments on 
this bill, both in committee and on the floor, where we fully do not 
know the full impact.
  That may sound to some people as a contradiction to the fact that I 
would want to be the leader in changing and I would lead the charge in 
changing the PATRIOT Act. So I understand that, if there is concern, 
the gentleman has to be respected for that. But this is an issue that 
we really need to consult with many people on, and we just do not think 
it should be done on this particular bill.
  With that in mind, not only would I oppose it, but I would hope the 
gentleman would reconsider and withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and am proud to join with him and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) in cosponsoring it.
  It has been said that Members may not know the impact of this 
amendment. This amendment seeks to deny funds which would be used to 
carry out section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows for so-called 
sneak-and-peak searches. It has been said that Members may not know the 
impact of this amendment.
  Let it be stated here that when this House passed the PATRIOT Act, 
most Members, as diligent as they are, nevertheless did not have access 
to see the very bill they were voting on, that, in fact, we were not 
voting on at 6 o'clock in the afternoon, we were voting on in the dead 
of night. In an atmosphere of apprehension and confusion and chaos, the 
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which has led to a destructive 
undermining of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights. The amendment 
of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is the first opportunity that 
we have had

[[Page H7291]]

in this House to correct something that has been a grievous assault on 
our Constitution.
  We are offering this amendment to restore integrity to the fourth 
amendment by denying funds from being used to carry out section 213 of 
the PATRIOT Act, that section which allows for the sneak-and-peak 
searches. Common law has always required that the government cannot 
enter your property without you and must, therefore, give you notice 
before it executes a search. That knock-and-announce principle has long 
been recognized as having been codified in the fourth amendment to the 
United States Constitution.
  The PATRIOT Act, however, unconstitutionally amended the Federal 
Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches 
without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search 
has been executed. Let me tell you what this means. This means that 
under this law, this law which was passed by the Congress, the 
government can enter your house, your apartment, your office, with a 
search warrant, when the occupants are away, search through your 
property, take photographs, and, in some cases, even seize property and 
not tell you until later. This effectively guts the fourth amendment 
protections.
  In response to questioning by the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
Department of Justice makes it clear that the fourth amendment is 
already in peril as a result of section 213. Listen to this box score 
of their activity: the Department of Justice reports that sneak-and-
peak searches have been used on 47 separate occasions and that the 
period of delay for notification has been sought almost 250 times. I 
would suggest to you just once constitutes a threat to our Bill of 
Rights.
  These secret warrants have been used in Federal criminal 
investigations not necessarily related to terrorist investigations.
  Notice with a warrant is a crucial check on the government's power. 
It forces authorities to operate in the open. It allows citizens to 
protect their constitutional rights. For example, it allows subjects to 
point out problems with a warrant, for instance, if the police are at 
the wrong address or if the scope of the warrant is obviously being 
exceeded.
  If, for example, authorities in search of a stolen car go into 
someone's apartment and rifle through a dresser drawer, search warrants 
rightly contain limits on what may be searched. But when the searching 
authorities have utter control and discretion over a search, American 
citizens are unable to defend their constitutional rights.
  This assault on the fourth amendment is wrong, it is 
unconstitutional, it is un-American; and it must stop. I would ask my 
colleagues to recall the oft-invoked words of a great American, 
Benjamin Franklin, who once said: ``Those who would give up essential 
liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty 
nor safety.''
  I say today that section 213 of the PATRIOT Act destroys an essential 
liberty. The Otter amendment restores it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want 
to compliment the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) for bringing this to 
the floor.
  When the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was in the passions following 9/
11, and that bill should have never been passed. It was brought up 
carelessly, casually, in a rapid manner. The bill that had been 
discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary was removed during the 
night before we voted. The full text of this bill was very difficult to 
find. I am convinced that very few Members were able to review this 
bill before voting. That bill should have never passed. We certainly 
should continue to maintain the sunset provisions. But that is a long 
way off, and we should be starting to reform and improve this 
particular piece of legislation. This is our first chance to do so.
  I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet 
admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the 
worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity 
to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not 
have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to 
vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to 
make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal 
Government would not have access to the library records.
  But there is no need ever to sacrifice liberty in order to maintain 
security. I feel more secure when I have more liberty; and that is why 
I am a defender of liberty, because my main concern is security, both 
in the physical sense as well as the financial sense. I think the freer 
the country is, the more prosperous we are; and the freer the country 
is, the more secure we are.
  Yet it was in the atmosphere of post-9/11 that so many were anxious 
to respond to what they perceived as demands by the people to do 
something. But just to do something, if you are doing the wrong thing, 
what good is it? You are doing more harm.
  But my main argument is that there is never a need to sacrifice 
liberty in order to protect liberty, and that is why we would like to 
at least remove this clause that allows sneak-and-peak search warrants.
  It took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop this concept 
that governments do not have the right to break in without the proper 
procedures and without probable cause. And yet we threw that out the 
window in this post-9/11 atmosphere, and we gave away a lot.
  Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our 
government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning. 
It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not 
done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on, 
and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and 
that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution, 
the fourth amendment.
  Not only should we do whatever we can to reform that legislation, but 
we already know that there is a PATRIOT Act No. 2. It has not been 
given to us, the Congress; but the administration has it for the 
future. It is available, but we have only gotten to see it from the 
Internet.
  In that bill there is a proposal that the government can strip us of 
our citizenship, and then anybody then stripped of their citizenship 
could be put into the situation that many foreigners find themselves in 
at Guantanamo before the military tribunals.
  I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about 
liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law 
and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging 
into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in 
the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This 
has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American 
people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize 
how serious the PATRIOT Act is.
  I hope that the Congress and our colleagues here will support this 
amendment. It is very necessary, and it will be voting for the 
Constitution; and it will be voting for liberty if we support this 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) who just spoke. It is a cliche in this House that almost no 
speeches change people's minds, but I think this speech is one occasion 
when it has certainly changed mine, and I want to thank the gentleman 
for that.
  Originally, when I first heard the amendment offered, I thought, 
well, this is not the right place for this, and it is not; and I 
thought there may be ramifications to this that we do not understand, 
and there probably are. But I have full confidence in the ability of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) to see to it that that is fixed in conference if this 
amendment is adopted.
  The reason I have changed my mind listening to the gentleman from 
Texas and the reason I intend to support this amendment is because of 
the history of the PATRIOT Act.

[[Page H7292]]

                              {time}  1815

  When the first act was brought to this House floor, I voted 
``present'' because this House had no idea what was in it. We were 
asked to vote blind. And as a protest to doing that, even in the heat 
of 9-11, I voted ``present'' to signify that I did not feel that I knew 
enough about the contents of that bill to vote for it.
  When it came back from conference, I very reluctantly voted ``yes,'' 
because I thought there were some things in it that, because of what I 
had learned in classified briefings, we needed to face. Things like 
being able to go after multiple telephones rather than just being able 
to target one telephone number of a suspected terrorist, for instance. 
So I assumed that given the unifying approach that the administration 
at that point had been taking after 9-11, I assumed the Justice 
Department would exercise those authorities with restraint. I was 
wrong.
  I believe this Attorney General has far overreached legitimate 
boundaries. I often disagree with The Washington Post, but I have to 
congratulate their constant drumbeat of editorials in support of 
preserving the values of the Constitution that protect individual 
freedom and privacy. And when I see the Justice Department overreach, 
as it has, and when I see them assert the claim that they have a right 
to lock up anybody they want without any kind of court review 
whatsoever, I am appalled and chagrined and horrified.
  So in my view, anything that can be done to push the Justice 
Department back a little bit closer to the Constitution, anything that 
can be done to reinforce Congress's determination to give PATRIOT II a 
far tougher scrutiny than it gave PATRIOT I, I am willing to do.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), because my 
first reaction was that we did not know enough about the effect of this 
amendment to adopt the amendment. But upon reflection, after hearing 
the gentleman, I conclude that we know far too much about how PATRIOT I 
has been used not to adopt this amendment. As I say, the gentleman from 
Virginia is correct, that there may be problems with this; but I really 
think we have the capacity to fix those problems in conference if there 
are problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the Justice Department to have to come to us and 
assure us that the way they are enforcing the law that we have given 
them the authority to enforce is the correct way. I do not want us to 
have to go hat in hand to the Justice Department asking them to defend 
the Constitution.
  So I would at this point simply say I think the gentleman is right. 
We ought to adopt this amendment if for no other reason than to send a 
message to the Justice Department that we want respect for law 
demonstrated by the Justice Department as well as average citizens of 
this country.
  I thank the gentleman for his speech, and I thank the gentleman for 
offering the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself feeling good that once today I can agree 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and that is that the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has brought forth a very important 
amendment which is addressing an issue that I believe millions of 
Americans from very different political perspectives, whether they are 
conservatives, like the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), or 
progressives like myself, or people in between, are demanding a tough 
examination of, and that is the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act.
  Everybody in our country knows that on 9-11, 2001, a dastardly attack 
took place against our country and 3,000 innocent people were killed. 
And every Member of this Chamber pledges to do everything that we can 
to protect the American people from other acts of terrorism and to do 
everything that we can to wipe out terrorism throughout the world.
  But what some of us very strongly believe is that we should not be 
undermining basic American constitutional rights in the fight against 
terrorism. We have strong law enforcement capabilities in this country 
to fight terrorism, and we have to support our law enforcement 
officials to do that. But we can fight terrorism without denying the 
American people their basic constitutional rights, and that is the 
point that I think the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is making 
today.
  As my colleagues know, I am very disappointed on a similar issue, 
section 215, which deals with the FBI going into libraries and book 
stores all over this country with virtually no probable cause. That 
issue is not being debated. But I applaud my friend from Idaho for 
demanding that this body begin, just begin to take a hard look at the 
U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which passed so swiftly through this body where I 
think many honest Members will acknowledge that they really did not 
have the time to look at all aspects of that legislation.
  So I rise in strong support of the Otter amendment, and I hope that 
it carries.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of discussion as to whether or not this 
is an appropriate time or the appropriate place to debate this issue. 
Certainly there will be more debate to come. But this is as good a time 
as any, and as good a place as any, because it is a good amendment that 
definitely needs to be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank those who have engaged in the 
debate, whether one is for or against this amendment.
  But there is one thing I must notice and bring to everybody's 
attention, Mr. Chairman, and that is that pound for pound, we have 
debated this amendment longer than we debated the PATRIOT Act. We 
passed the PATRIOT Act in 45 days. The smoke was still coming up out of 
the rubble in New York City and at the Pentagon, and who could not be 
torn by still hearing the cries and the pain of the victims and the 
families of those victims.
  But now we have an opportunity to reflect back on what have we done. 
I have to tell my colleagues that the comments that have been made 
relative to, is this the proper time or is this the proper place, I am 
just so thankful that our Founding Fathers did not sit around and say 
that. It was the time. It was the place. And that is the legacy that 
they gave us; and that legacy demands that whenever the opportunity 
arises, we have an obligation to stand and to stand firm to make sure 
that the liberties of the American people are foremost. There is only 
one purpose for government, one purpose for government, and that is to 
defend us in the peaceful exercise of our liberties.
  So I am hoping, once again, as my friend, the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders), said, that this will be the first in the piece-by-piece 
taking back the freedoms and the liberties that we have, while leaving 
some of the PATRIOT Act in place. The proper role of government, the 
proper role of government is to defend us in the free and peaceful 
exercise of our liberties and in our homes, and not to take those away 
from us.
  So I pray, I hope that today we begin that process, and I invite the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and all others who will want to participate in 
that to join me.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to rise to express a lot of empathy and 
sympathy with the concerns expressed on the Otter amendment. I think 
that they are very legitimate questions. I think some of the concerns 
about the rapidity with which the PATRIOT I Act was passed in the 
aftermath of a huge American historic tragedy are legitimate concerns. 
But the rapidity with which we are passing this amendment in some ways 
reflects the problems that some of the proponents of the amendment are 
suggesting the original PATRIOT Act is guilty of.
  I will tell my colleagues that it is important to have deliberation 
and thoughtfulness as we go through the process of striking a new 
balance. I think all of us will recognize that the last time the 
mainland of the United States was attacked by a foreign power before 
September 11 was in 1812. All of us here are civil libertarians, but 
defining the balance between order and liberty is a constant struggle 
with new technologies, with new challenges.

[[Page H7293]]

When was the last time that we as Americans before September 11 
literally thought about the terror of a potential biological, chemical, 
nuclear attack from a foreign power? This is a whole new set of 
balancing that we have to do within the great framework that the 
founders provided us in the Constitution. And I agree with the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the proponents of this amendment 
that we need to have careful and thoughtful reflection, and we need to 
be constantly dealing with balancing these new issues.
  But I do believe that the best place to do that is through the 
subcommittee process, in committees like the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which I serve on. We hear expert testimony from civil 
libertarians and law professors, from prosecutors and defense 
attorneys, from people throughout the country who have expertise in 
advising us, as the body that represents the people of the United 
States in a democratic fashion, but also in a fashion that respects the 
constitutional framework.
  I personally am a huge civil libertarian, and there is much in the 
suggestion that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the proponents 
have of this amendment with which I hugely sympathize. But I will tell 
my colleagues this: in a new day when all of our children and all of 
our grandchildren are constantly under threat of biological, chemical, 
or nuclear terror, which was not true, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, the 
time for us has come to move into the 21st century in terms of 
preparing the defense of the homeland. That is why we created an Office 
of Homeland Security.
  Now, let me address the merits of the amendment itself, because with 
all due respect, there is some suggestion that the PATRIOT Act 
radically changed the process of delayed notification. The question is 
when a subpoena is issued, are there times when actual prior 
notification to the recipient of the subpoena can be waived; and the 
answer is, it has always been true, or at least far before September 
11, that in most circuits in the United States, Federal courts have 
allowed the delayed notification. But several things are required.
  Number one, one would think from listening to some of the debate that 
any prosecutor or any sheriff or any law enforcement agent or any FBI 
agent could go in and subpoena records and tell people only after the 
fact that their records had been confiscated and reviewed by the 
government. That is a scary thought, but it is simply not accurate. The 
truth of the matter is that in all events, 213 requires that a judge 
make a decision. The authority is based on a court order and a court 
order alone. So a judge is going to review all of the potential 
evidence in the case to determine whether or not the delayed 
notification is warranted.
  I want the people to understand throughout America when courts are in 
power, and the only time they are in power to approve delayed 
notification, courts can delay notice only when immediate notification, 
in other words, prior notification, might result in the death or 
physical harm of an individual.
  Imagine the events leading up to September 11 and the intelligence we 
now know, if we had been better prepared to put it together, assimilate 
it, understand what it meant. Courts can only delay notification if the 
death or physical harm of an individual is impacted, or when there is 
flight from prosecution; and we had some 19 terrorists floating around 
America that we now know organized the September 11 events; evidence 
tampering, or witness intimidation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Otter amendment raises 
concerns that I share, and those concerns are that we have to balance 
in a new technological world, in a world of new threats, liberty and 
order and security and homeland security. I would suggest that the 
issues raised here are appropriate to debate. We will be debating them 
for years, dare I say decades; but I do not think the place to debate 
them is in the appropriation bill of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OTTER. 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 Idaho (Mr. 
Otter) will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--state 
     and local law enforcement assistance'' may be used to assist 
     any State or local government entity or official that 
     prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from 
     sending to, or receiving from, the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security 
     information regarding the citizenship or immigration status 
     of an individual, as prohibited under section 642(a) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, this body passed the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. Other provisions 
of that act, it is noted in the amendment, state that ``Notwithstanding 
any of the provisions of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State 
or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way 
restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving 
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding 
the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any 
individual.''
  Now, this was a good provision of law. I am glad it was passed and 
that President Clinton signed it. The only problem with this particular 
law is that there is no sanction should any State, local or any other 
agency choose to violate the law. So this amendment is similar to the 
one I offered during consideration of the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill.
  Outrage is often expressed by Members of this House when corporations 
flee from the United States seeking some sort of tax haven off the 
coast of America, yet dare to seek Federal funds in the several 
appropriations and tax bills that we pass in this body. They are 
indignant; and I, by the way, share the feeling of indignation.
  In that same vein, I think it is outrageous to have cities and States 
applying for law enforcement funds under this act when they passed laws 
and ordinances, which has been done in several cities and States around 
the country, that actually prevent the law enforcement agencies in 
those cities from sharing information with or obtaining information 
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or as it is now known, 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs.
  Unfortunately, there are cities in the United States that have 
disregarded the law. Recently, as a matter of fact, the City of New 
York rescinded an ordinance that it had on the books for 20 years that 
had prohibited police officers from communicating with the INS.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several cities in the United States that have 
chosen to pass legislation, pass laws that in fact restrict the ability 
of their own police forces in many cases from sharing information with 
the now Bureau of Immigration and Customs. This is a violation of law, 
the law that we have on the books.
  I am not trying to expand the law. I am simply trying to do something 
that would help us enforce the law.
  It is a very simple amendment. It says that if you make that choice 
as a city or State to make America a more dangerous place by refusing 
to share data with or accept data from Federal immigration authorities, 
that you will forgo State and local law enforcement assistance funds. 
If a city or State makes an affirmative choice to thumb their nose at 
the Federal law, then they get no Federal money under the provisions of 
this particular act; it is as simple as that.
  There are, in fact, right now we have, Lord knows, how many 
immigration

[[Page H7294]]

policies being operated in the country. And the question we have to ask 
ourselves is, how many should there be and who should be responsible 
for setting immigration policy? Is it not the position, is it not the 
sole responsibility of the Federal Government to set immigration 
policies? And yet we have it now happening all over the country that 
cities are determining their own.
  Well, I guess if we cannot stop that from happening, at least what we 
can do is say, they cannot apply for Federal funds under this 
particular provision of the act. That is really all it does. It does 
not actually restrict any money from flowing to any city because all 
they have to do is, of course, abide by the law that is already on the 
books.
  I guess I have to keep reiterating, because I know on the last 
discussion we had on the matter there was a lot of concern about 
whether or not we were creating a brand-new law. I repeat, this is not 
creating new law. It is simply asking for some sort of enforcement 
mechanism or sanction for a city that decides to actually violate the 
law. That is all there is to it.
  It has no significance in terms of immigration policy. There was a 
lot of discussion about that, whether we were changing that. It is 
simply reinforcing the fact that the United States of America, the 
Federal Government, has the sole responsibility to set immigration 
policy. We cannot let States and cities do their own all over the 
country. Something has to be done to change that. This is my attempt to 
do just that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), is a good friend, and I 
appreciate all the good work he has done on Sudan and the Sudan Peace 
Act and other issues. It is painful to rise in opposition to this.
  This amendment is exactly what we did before on the Homeland Security 
bill. There was a vote on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
the Rogers bill, it was 106 for the Tancredo amendment, 322 against. We 
are facing this issue again.
  In this subcommittee we do not have jurisdiction over the Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is under the jurisdiction of 
Homeland Security appropriations and not this subcommittee.
  Also, I understand the gentleman's amendment could result, or 
probably would result, in the States not being able to receive funding 
under State and local law enforcement assistance. It could have a 
devastating impact on resources made available to State and local law 
enforcement and to citizens that are involved. It could result in 
States losing tens of millions of dollars in programs such as the Byrne 
program. People are complaining that there is not enough money in here 
for the Byrne program; this amendment would reduce that.
  The SCAAP program, the budget request has zeroed out SCAAP. We have 
it at $400 million. That would be impacted, drug courts, State prison 
drug treatment programs. So to punish the State and local law 
enforcement, I believe, is not the way. Also, this amendment really 
should have been offered as it was drafted and it is more appropriate 
for the Homeland Security bill. We do not have the jurisdiction over 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  So I oppose the amendment and would urge Members to vote no. This 
amendment is basically what we did several weeks ago, the amendment 
failed 322 against and 122 for.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate what the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said. Rather than taking a long time 
speaking against this amendment, I think Members should understand that 
the House has already turned this proposition down by a vote of 322 to 
102.
  We will have copies of that previous rollcall here at the desk if 
Members want to know how they voted on previous occasions.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I listen to this debate, I think there is a point 
that needs to be clarified and that is what the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) seeks to do is simply say that if you are a local 
government and you have passed an ordinance that prohibits your 
employees from cooperating with Federal law by providing information 
to, and this is the Federal law, specifically, the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. We have out here 
about a baker's dozen of major cities in this country that have passed 
an ordinance saying we are going to be a safe haven and we will not 
cooperate with the Federal entities or Federal law, and the ordinance 
says so.
  So if we are going to have any linkage at all between Federal dollars 
and this rule of law that requires cooperation between all levels of 
government, we need to put some strings in here; and that is what we 
have done.
  I was rather taken aback some years ago when the fairly new city of 
El Cenizo, Texas, precluded their employees from complying with Federal 
agents. I thought that was an anomaly; instead, it is becoming a 
standard.
  With regard to the comment that there is no jurisdiction over the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs in this committee, I do agree with 
that particular statement as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. But 
we need to have a hook in here. This is dollars, and it just says that 
if you have an ordinance that prohibits your people from complying with 
this Federal law, we are not going to allow the dollars to go then to 
that particular political subdivision or community.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Very briefly, this amendment runs the risk, as others have, of breaking 
down local relationships that law enforcement has tried to build with 
some communities.
  Picture, if you will, the situation that a lot of police departments 
throughout this Nation have in large cities especially and in other 
communities where they are trying on a daily basis to build a 
relationship with folks that are just coming to the country. In many 
instances, and this we can attest to, whether you have been born here, 
whether you have just arrived here, whether you are a citizen or you 
are not, the whole idea of dealing with the Immigration Department is 
one that strikes fear in the hearts of many people and it is across the 
board.
  Police departments, local law enforcement are aware of this and part 
of their relationship building has been the fact that they have always 
been seen as something other than the Immigration Department.
  Now, to continue to try to force local law enforcement to, in fact, 
act as immigration officers just breaks down the ability of those 
relationships to be put together. So, therefore, if you take a 
situation where, and police have said this over and over again in other 
issues where they were asked to participate in these kinds of behavior 
where they said, look, if we need to know who committed a crime, if we 
need to know what is going on in a neighborhood, if we need to know how 
to go in and deal with issues of crime and other forms of abuse, we 
need the confidence of the community we are dealing with.
  If they think in any way, shape or form that we are only dealing with 
immigration issues or that we are, in fact, immigration officers, we 
lose the ability to deal with this community, we lose the ability to 
have them as supporters of what we do.
  Now, this amendment says, and if you choose to build those 
relationships and if you choose to act in that way and we find out, we 
will withhold from you dollars, very valuable dollars, that go to all 
the issues we have discussed here in the fight against crime and all 
the issues that we need to take care of locally.
  So I really think that this is an ill-conceived notion. It was 
defeated before. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, 
Members can come and look at their vote. It was defeated strongly in 
this House and it should be defeated again.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) with this 
amendment declares war on Los Angeles and a number of other cities

[[Page H7295]]

throughout this country. He takes a city that is desperately trying to 
increase the size of the police force, using its own resources and 
utilizing State and Federal resources where they are available, to 
expand, to remove itself from the distinction of being one of the most 
under-policed cities in the country and says, You are no longer 
eligible for the Byrne program. You are no longer eligible for local 
law enforcement assistance block grants. You are no longer eligible for 
more than a billion dollars of funds appropriated by this bill to help 
local law enforcement around the country.
  Why? Well, the gentleman would have you believe it is because the 
City of Los Angeles and other jurisdictions, State and local, around 
this country, have chosen to try to promote and protect undocumented 
immigrants who have come to this country. But the truth is very far 
from that.
  The problem is, there are millions and millions of undocumented 
people in this country, and if they are going to report when they are 
the victims of rapes and robberies and assaults and other violent 
crimes that their immigration status will be referred to the INS, they 
are not going to report those crimes. And where witnesses know that if 
they come forward to report what they have observed in terms of violent 
crime, their names are going to be referred to the INS, they are not 
going to come forward. And local law enforcement in many jurisdictions 
has concluded that their mission of trying to deter and apprehend 
violent criminals and incarcerate them is going to be seriously impeded 
by the policy the gentleman seeks to advocate. They have undertaken 
their own policies to try to encourage people to come forward.
  Now, to tell those cities and States and counties around this country 
that because they have undertaken those policies, they are ineligible 
for one dollar of any of the Federal grant programs to help local law 
enforcement to build up their ranks, provide the bulletproof vests, 
provide the technology and the crime labs to deal with any of these 
very important missions, they are ineligible.
  This is a reckless and unfortunate amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, he has 
been here in the Congress for several years. Does the gentleman recall 
if he voted for the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996?
  Mr. BERMAN. I know I opposed the bill that came out of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I know that many of the gentlemen who have spoken here 
did, in fact, vote for it. I do not know if the gentleman did.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am telling you how I voted.
  Mr. TANCREDO. You opposed the bill?
  Mr. BERMAN. I opposed the bill that came out of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Then you have a right, of course, to argue with the 
concept. But many of the people who already argued against the bill 
voted for the original bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I not only have a right, but I have a 
duty to try and protect the jurisdiction that I represent in this body 
from a Draconian, harsh, unjustified amendment which seeks to cut off 
all funding.
  If the gentleman wants to promote this policy, let him introduce a 
bill. Let it go through the Committee on the Judiciary. Let it go 
through the regular process. But do not render L.A. and a number of 
other jurisdictions throughout this country ineligible for local law 
enforcement assistance in order to promote his very narrow and, I 
think, self-defeating ideological agenda.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that all of us, regardless 
of how we voted on the original bill, have an obligation to determine 
whether or not this amendment will contribute to reduced effectiveness 
of law enforcement or enhanced effectiveness of law enforcement, and 
obviously 322 Members of the House the last time around recognized it 
would contribute to a lowered standard of law enforcement, which is 
what they ought to recognize on this amendment again tonight.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just my final comment 
on this, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Policies are initiated 
not about philosophical positions on the question of how to deal with 
undocumented people in this country or illegal immigrants in this 
country. The question is how best for law enforcement to serve their 
local missions; and to have this body come in and seek to intrude on 
that process by shutting off the means that we have decided are worthy 
to help local law enforcement have the manpower and the technology and 
the resources to apprehend violent criminals, I think is just crazy; 
and I urge this body to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, one of Mr. Tancredo's 
amendments would impose restrictions on the Department of Justice with 
respect to making funds available to assist State and local law 
enforcement programs. Such financial assistance would be denied to a 
State of local government that has prohibited its police forces or 
other government entities from providing information about the 
immigration status of aliens to the Department of Homeland Security.
  In fact, State and local governments are already prohibited from 
imposing such restrictions on their police forces and other government 
entities by section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373(a). It is 
apparent, therefore, that the threat of losing financial assistance is 
not necessary. The conduct addressed by Mr. Tancredo's amendment can be 
stopped already on the basis of the fact that it is unlawful.
  Mr. Tancredo's other amendment would prevent the Department of State 
from receiving funds that would be used to assist foreign governments 
in the development of consular identification cards. It is not apparent 
why the State Department would be using funds for that purpose in the 
first place.
  Nevertheless, if a foreign government requested such assistance, I do 
not believe that it would be improper to provide it. For instance, our 
government may be able to provide valuable assistance to some foreign 
governments with respect to such things as high security devices for 
preventing the creation of fraudulent consular identification cards.
  I urge you to vote against both of these amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Ose

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ose:
       At the end of the bill after the last section (preceding 
     the short title) insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in violation of section 212(a)(10)(C) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.

  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise before my colleagues today to offer an 
amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State and the Judiciary 
appropriations bill to prohibit funds to the Department of State for 
the issuance of visas to child abductors and their immediate family and 
agents who aid and abet these child abductors.
  Despite an increasingly high level of congressional and public 
concern regarding the tragedy of international parental child abduction 
and wrongful retention of American children abroad, the plight of 
American children persists.
  The State Department reports 1,000 international parental abductions 
of children annually. Between 1973 and 1991, about 4,000 American 
children were reported to the U.S. State Department as abducted by a 
parent and taken across an international border.

[[Page H7296]]

In fact, estimates of the actual total exceed 10,000 American children.
  The House Committee on Government Reform, of which I am a member, has 
held numerous hearings on this matter, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) during his tenure for his guidance 
on that. I have heard heart-wrenching testimony from mothers and 
fathers who have lost their children through child abduction, and I 
have heard from children who have returned to the U.S. as victims of 
child abduction.
  Under current law, we have remedies for returning children who are 
abducted to nations that have signed the Hague Convention on the Civil 
Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, for nonsignatory 
nations, there are few remedies.
  One specific provision of current law denies visas for admission to 
the United States for child abductors, their immediate family or 
agents, who aid or abet a child abductor. Our amendment will prohibit 
funding to the State Department for any violation of this act. It is 
important for the State Department to utilize all available remedies 
for applying pressure for the return of these abducted children.
  I again want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and 
want to add my appreciation and compliments to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Lampson) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 
their support of this amendment. I have had significant conversations 
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) about this, and he is very 
attentive to this issue.
  We are all too familiar with cases of abducted children. It is time 
for our foreign counterparts to take notice of the 10,000 American 
children who have been abducted overseas. This is a nonpartisan issue 
that none of us can afford to ignore any longer.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may, there are two classes of countries. There are 
countries that have signed the Hague Convention, and there are 
countries that have not signed the Hague Convention. My limitation 
addresses those that have not signed the limitation; and it is 
consistent with 8 U.S. Code 1182, which is an existing law in the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act allowing the Secretary of State to 
deny visas to people who he has been notified have been involved in the 
abduction and retention of children in violation of a court order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just would say I strongly support the 
amendment and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Lampson) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 
this. This has been a real problem, and I think what the gentleman has 
done is going to force this to be addressed.
  I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has done an 
outstanding job with regard to the Saudi government. I saw the ``60 
Minutes'' piece; and when we talk to these moms, these children have 
not been released.
  So I will vote for the amendment, support the amendment. I think it 
is a great amendment; and with that, I want to again thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) and all the others.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for working 
on this. He has been a real leader in showing concern for these mothers 
who have had their children kidnapped to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, 
never to be seen again or heard from again; and I want to thank the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He 
has been a fighter for human rights for a long, long time; and this is 
another manifestation of his dedication to making sure that human 
rights are realized.
  Let me just tell my colleagues one story, and then I will yield back 
my time. We had a young lady from Terre Haute, Indiana. She had three 
children. She was married to a Saudi who had gone to college over here. 
They were divorced, and he went back to Saudi Arabia.
  The mother was very concerned when he wanted to visit the children 
for the summer, have them visit him, that he would take them to Saudi 
Arabia and she would not see them anymore. So she went to the judge and 
she told the judge of her concern, and the judge said, well, we cannot 
very well keep the father from seeing his children. However, we will 
tell the Saudi embassy of the divorce decree and that you have custody 
of the children and that they are not to be taken out of the country, 
and we will tell the father that he is not to take the children out of 
the country.
  They told the father when he got the children he was not to take the 
children out of the country. He could have them for a couple of weeks 
in the summer and return them to the mother. He said he would. His 
passport and the passports of the children were surrendered.
  He got the children. He went to the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. 
They issued passports for the children, even though there was a court 
order against it, and the mother had custody. He took the children to 
Saudi Arabia, three children; and the mother has not seen the children 
or talked to them since. Maybe she talked to them one time on the 
telephone.
  This is just one example of the tragedy that has been taking place 
regarding these children who are being kidnapped to Saudi Arabia and 
other countries throughout the world, and the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Ose) amendment will be a giant step in the right 
direction to put pressure on the Saudi Government to assist in 
returning these children to their rightful parent, the parent who has 
custody of them.
  There are other issues regarding this sort of thing, women who have 
been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia, who cannot get back because of the 
Saudi laws and because men, in effect, own the women over there and the 
children. So we are continuing to try to put pressure on them, and the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. Ose) amendment is a giant step in the 
right direction in dealing with this, and I want to thank him and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all of the cosponsors of the 
bill.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the critical piece on this 8 
U.S. Code 1182 is a notification process for the Secretary of State to 
receive notice from the families that an issue involving the foreign 
alien and these children has arisen. The Secretary of State's office, 
in our conversation with them, will receive a fax, a registered letter, 
a phone call, an e-mail, all these things; and my purpose in bringing 
that up is to try and establish a legislative history that the Congress 
is comfortable with any one of those singular forms of communications 
as long as it can be substantiated in a court of law that the Secretary 
of State has been put on notice. So I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ose/
Burton/Lampson/Maloney amendment.
  This amendment speaks directly to the American children who have been 
torn apart from their parents and are being held against their will in 
a foreign country that does not observe the many rights American 
citizens enjoy in this country.
  Between 1973 and 1991, roughly 4,000 American children were reported 
to the U.S. State Department as abducted by a parent and taken across 
an international border.
  We have heard from the worst of these cases in the Government Reform 
Committee which include young children, American mothers, and Saudi 
fathers.
  Saudi men wield an extraordinary amount of control and power over 
women and children in Saudi Arabia.
  Children cannot travel without the approval of their father, often, 
the very person who kidnaped them to a foreign country.
  Women are not allowed to drive a car.
  They cannot walk outside without completely covering themselves with 
an abaya.
  And, women are prohibited from studying certain subjects in school.
  These are just a few examples of the breach of basic human rights 
that is at the root of the problem of child abduction.

[[Page H7297]]

  Women in Saudi Arabia have very few rights and the result is the 
tragic child custody cases where families are broken apart and children 
are stripped from one of their parents.
  The United States has long taken a lead in creating a mechanism for 
the return of children abducted internationally and was instrumental in 
the negotiation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
International Child Abduction.
  The Convention provides a civil legal mechanism in the country where 
the child is located for parents to seek the return of, and access to, 
their child.
  Since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the 
Convention, these rules do not apply, and the result is that children 
suffer.
  I remind my colleagues that we must not forget that we are talking 
about real people, real daughters and sons who are separated from a 
parent.
  Each time a parent abducts, or wrongfully retains a child from his or 
her home, and prevents the child from having a relationship with the 
other parent, the trauma to the child is immediate and compounded each 
day the child is not returned home.
  This amendment will provide a tool for the State Department to help 
American children reunite with their families.
  It is the least we can do.
  I urge a ``yes' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Ose's amendment would bar funding by the State Department to 
issue entry visas for anyone who violates U.S. child abduction laws and 
those relatives who aid and abet them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 10 offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul); amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler); amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey); amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter); amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo); amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The vote on the Ose amendment will be postponed to 
later this evening.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 279, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               AYES--145

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--279

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berkley
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Hensarling
     Kelly
     Meek (FL)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1917

  Ms. McCOLLUM, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan and Messrs. WELLER, BOEHLERT 
and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HART, Messrs. SHIMKUS, JANKLOW, GREEN of Wisconsin, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania and CRENSHAW, Mrs. NORTHUP and Mr. HALL changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:

[[Page H7298]]

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 405 I inadvertently 
voted ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yea.''


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of 
this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 307, 
noes 119, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 406]

                               AYES--307

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--119

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berkley
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Hensarling
     Meek (FL)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1926

  Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SWEENEY and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 254, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               AYES--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner

[[Page H7299]]


     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--254

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berkley
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Meek (FL)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1934

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 309, 
noes 118, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 408]

                               AYES--309

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--118

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Feeney
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hart
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berkley
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Meek (FL)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1942

  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H7300]]

  Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 305, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 409]

                               AYES--122

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berkley
     Conyers
     Davis (TN)
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Meek (FL)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
on this vote.

                              {time}  1958

  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


  limitation on united states contributions to certain united nations 
                                entities

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for a United States contribution to any United 
     Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency that 
     is chaired or presided over by a country, the government of 
     which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of 
     section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for 
     acts of international terrorism. None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any 
     United States delegation to any United Nations commission, 
     organization, or affiliated agency described in the preceding 
     sentence.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the body, what do Libya, Cuba, 
North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other nations have in common, other than 
being oppressive, dictatorial regimes? Well, what they have in common 
is that at one time or another, they have served as Chair of 
commissions or organizations within the United Nations.
  So what my amendment does, based on legislation introduced earlier 
this year, is it essentially blocks funding to organizations, 
commissions, or other bodies headed by nations on a terrorist watch 
list. Specifically, it would block U.S. taxpayer dollars from being 
disbursed to the United Nations if the money is used for committees 
headed by nations that have repeatedly provided support for acts of 
international terrorism.
  Now, by way of example, I think a vivid example, I should say, is 
essentially what happened earlier this year with the Commission on 
Human Rights, or the Conference on Disarmament. These very commissions 
are dominated by nations opposed to the very concepts by which those 
commissions are named. Last month's outrage was Cuba. The 
dictatorship's brutal crackdown included the execution of three men for 
trying to escape Cuba and imprisoned dozens of others for daring to 
speak out. They have a vital role on the Commission on Human Rights. 
The U.N. said nothing about the crackdown, but Cuba was then elected to 
another term to serve on the panel. Ironically, the chairman, or the 
Chair country of that Commission on Human Rights, is Libya.
  At the beginning of the year, Iraq was going to head the Conference 
on Disarmament. Iraq did not take over, but remained on the commission, 
the Commission on Disarmament. Iran

[[Page H7301]]

chaired the conference instead. Also on the Disarmament Committee is 
North Korea. I just think that this is symptomatic of a lot of 
carelessness at the United Nations.
  There are many who think that the United Nations can play a pivotal 
and vital role in securing the world's peace. But from time to time, 
the only language it seems they understand is the power of the purse.
  So all this amendment does is if one of these nations, and I think 
everybody in good conscience can look at these nations and say they 
represent not only what the brutal regimes are all about, but really 
are inconsistent with fundamental universal values, I would suggest 
that the money is withheld. Very simply put, I think it is common 
sense. After all, the U.S. provides almost 22 percent of the U.N. 
budget, which currently stands at about $222 million; and what we are 
suggesting is that if one of these nations on the State Department list 
of terrorist nations is heading one of these commissions, the money is 
withheld.
  With that, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Department has been in touch with the 
committee, and I want to share with the Members their position. They 
said that this is an amendment that they strongly oppose. They go on to 
say, we the State Department, have taken a hard stand against Libya, a 
country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record in 
its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a 
vote, the State Department said that they forced members to take a 
stand on this issue, and everyone knew what the U.S. position was.
  They end by saying that withdrawing support by withholding part of 
our assessed contributions, thus accumulating arrears and eliminating 
funding for U.S. participation in these bodies, weakens our 
effectiveness and would be counterproductive.
  That is the position of the State Department.
  This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions for activities 
funded within the budgets of the U.N. or its affiliated agencies whose 
decision-making bodies (e.g., commission) are chaired by a member state 
which supports acts of international terrorism (as determined by the 
Secretary under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 
1979).
  The Administration fully agrees that U.N. bodies should not be headed 
or chaired by member states which sponsor or support international 
terrorism.
  We have made these views abundantly clear over the past year.
  We took a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism 
and has a dismal human rights record, in its election to chair the 
Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, we forced members to 
take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew the U.S. position.
  We also work hard to keep states that support international terrorism 
off the U.N. Security Council.
  But we strongly believe that withholding funding for bodies chaired 
by such states will not help us achieve our policy goals at the U.N.
  To effect change at the U.N., we need to remain fully engaged, which 
is our goal and our plan.
  Withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed 
contributions--thus accumulating arrears--and eliminating funding for 
U.S. participation in these bodies weakens our effectiveness, and would 
be counterproductive.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from New York makes some very 
strong points. The problem with his amendment and the reason I rise in 
opposition to it is that I believe that while we may not be happy with 
some of the folks that make up some of the organizations that are part 
of the U.N. and other international organizations, for that matter, it 
is in the best interests of our country, it is in the best interests of 
our foreign policy to be engaged in these organizations, rather than 
withdraw from them and not support them.
  So while his points are well taken, and I am sure that if we sat down 
around a table we would not disagree on some of the makeup of these 
organizations, to withdraw from them, not to be supportive, not to pay 
our dues is, in fact, one, to turn our back on the ability to do some 
good work by those organizations and secondly, and most importantly, if 
we sort of take our marbles or take our basketball and go home, we do 
not get to participate and, therefore, we do not get to speak about the 
same issues that the gentleman from New York is concerned about.
  So for those reasons, I would join the chairman in opposing the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  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 of the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Glassroth v. Moore, 
     decided July 1, 2003 or Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 
     1067 (M. D. Ala. 2002).

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, in Glassroth v. Moore, the 11th Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruled that the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy 
Moore violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the 
Constitution by placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in 
the rotunda of the Alabama State judicial building in Montgomery, 
Alabama. In the court's words, ``The rule of law does require that 
every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing 
them have been exhausted.''
  In this statement, Mr. Chairman, the court plainly shows that it 
believes itself to be the chief lawmaker whose orders become law. But, 
in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is inconsistent with both the Constitution 
and article I, section 8, and, in fact, Federal statute, which says 
that the United States Marshal Service shall execute ``all lawful 
writs, process, and orders of the U.S. district courts, U.S. Courts of 
Appeal and the Court of International Trade, 28 U.S.C. 566(c).
  In reality, Mr. Chairman, the founders of this great Nation foresaw 
this problem and wrote about it. And when they developed our form of 
government, they said this, according to Alexander Hamilton in 
Federalist No. 78: ``Whoever attentively considers the different 
departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they 
are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its 
functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights 
of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or 
injure them.
  ``The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of 
the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but 
prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen 
are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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. 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 even for the efficacy of its judgments.''
  Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor 
will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert 
that force and will.
  We have heard tonight that the executive branch wants to argue the 
Newdow case that was spoken of earlier and may hear that the executive 
branch wants to argue in favor of the display of the 10 Commandments in 
that case. We will allow, therefore, the executive branch to leave 
these decisions in the hands of the judiciary who, a few years ago, 
concluded that sodomy can be regulated by the States, but most recently 
said that sodomy was just short of a fundamental right that is 
enshrined in our United States Constitution.
  But the framers of the Constitution never intended for the fickle 
sentiments of as few as five people in black robes unelected and 
unaccountable to the people to have the power to make such fundamental 
decisions for society. That power was crafted and reserved for the 
legislature, and one of the mechanisms that was entrusted to us was the 
power of the purse.

[[Page H7302]]

  Mr. Chairman, time and again I am sure that our colleagues are asked 
about ridiculous decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us 
say that there is nothing we can do. Mr. Chairman, today, we can do 
something. We do not have to put our faith in the faint possibility 
that some day five people in black robes will wake up and see that they 
have usurped the authority to legislate and will constrain themselves 
from straying from their constitutional boundaries.
  Mr. Chairman, it might be suggested that we do not want this 
legislation to disrupt the judicial process in the interim between the 
Circuit Court of Appeals process and the Supreme Court. It is not my 
intention to do that tonight. In fact, I welcome the highest Court's 
review of this decision; and I say tonight that if they get it wrong, I 
will exercise the power of the purse again and defund the enforcement 
of that inane decision.
  Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to learn the powers 
of the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary. After this vote, Mr. 
Chairman, and the vote to defund the Ninth Circuit's decision to 
effectively remove the phrase ``under God'' from the Pledge of 
Allegiance, sour constituents will ask us, Congressman, do we, your 
constituents, have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, and we 
do not need to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not, 
today or tomorrow, inject common sense into the decisions of the 
Supreme Court?
  Mr. Chairman, we will be able to tell them, Yes, you do have a 
fundamental say.
  And it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have offered this 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
Appropriations Act. This legislation is where we find any funding in 
any executive agency that would enforce the 11th Circuit's judgment in 
this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from 
being used to enforce that erroneous decision in Glassroth v. Moore. I 
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a classic. In the long history of 
this institution, there have been many amendments offered on the floor 
of this Chamber. Never has an amendment been offered that did less than 
this amendment does tonight. It does not matter how people vote. No 
matter what side one is on on the question of separation of church and 
State or the Ten Commandments or anything else, it does not matter how 
one votes, because this amendment does not do nothing to nobody.
  All this amendment does is to say that the Justice Department cannot 
enforce the decision that the gentleman does not like. The only problem 
is the Justice Department does not enforce this decision anyway. The 
Justice Department has already made quite clear that this is a ``let us 
pretend'' amendment. It pretends that we are doing something to protect 
the Ten Commandments.
  I would suggest that rather than offering amendments that pretend to 
do that, if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply 
start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers. That 
will do a whole lot more than pretending that we are preventing the 
Justice Department from enforcing a decision which they would not be 
enforcing anyway.
  So I could not care less how one votes on the amendment because it 
does not have any effect whatsoever. If the gentleman wants to take the 
time of this body to offer do-nothing amendments, be my guest; but I 
hope Members are not under an illusion.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. This is my time. The gentleman has had his 
time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I just asked the gentleman to yield.
  Mr. OBEY. And I said no, and I do not intend to yield for the 
remainder of my time, okay?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Is this in compliance with the Ten Commandments?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the gentleman from Indiana start 
following the Ten Commandments in terms of the way he treats people on 
this floor. This is my time. It is not funny.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying, vote however you want. 
This is a free vote. It is one of those votes that Members often offer 
in hopes that the public can be convinced we are actually doing 
something at 8:15 at night; but with all due respect on this amendment, 
we are not. So vote any way you want, just do not be under the illusion 
that when you do so, you are protecting the Ten Commandments. It does 
not. I could care less what the vote is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, future proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2015


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States 
     of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, 
     Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing 
     State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those 
     States.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
and any amendment thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation that would 
prevent the Justice Department from using any of the funds appropriated 
to it by this bill to interfere with the implementation of State laws 
that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under the 
supervision of a licensed physician.
  During the past several years 10 States, Alaska Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, 
have passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical 
purposes. With the exception of Hawaii and Maryland, all of these laws 
were passed by referendum and the average vote in each of those eight 
States was more than 60 percent approval. These State laws are not 
free-for-alls that open the doors to wholesale legalization as critics 
claim. Rather, in every case, they specify in great detail the 
illnesses for which patients may use marijuana for medicinal purposes, 
the amounts the patients may possess, and the conditions under which it 
can be grown and obtained. Most establish a State registry and an 
identification card for patients.
  Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no 
permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical 
trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating 
symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other 
serious medical conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the 
National Academy of Sciences has recommended smoking marijuana for 
certain medical uses.
  The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, 
the American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical 
Association, the American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente, 
and the New England Journal of Medicine

[[Page H7303]]

have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana.
  Internationally, the Canadian Government has adopted regulations for 
the use of medical marijuana in that country to our immediate north. In 
addition, the British Medical Association, the French Ministry of 
Health, the Israel Health Ministry, and the Australian National Task 
Force on Cannabis have all recommended the use of medical marijuana.
  Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in 
its opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in the States that I 
mentioned. After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, 
the Clinton Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and 
distributors in an attempt to shut down the new California State law.
  Federal courts upheld the right of doctors to talk to their patients 
about medical marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is a 
violation of Federal law to distribute marijuana for medicinal 
purposes. Despite State laws that protect patients from State 
prosecution, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Federal 
Government to enforce Federal laws against those individuals, 
nevertheless complying with laws in their own States.
  Attorney General Ashcroft has vigorously enforced this decision, 
choosing to prosecute patients and distributors, which makes passage of 
this amendment critical to the States that have enacted laws for the 
medicinal use of marijuana. This amendment would prevent the Justice 
Department from arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging 
doctors, patients and distributors in those States from acting in 
compliance with their State laws.
  This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use, not 
in any way. It does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive 
schedule of narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical 
marijuana law. It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing 
drug laws against drug kingpins, narco-traffickers, street dealers, 
habitual criminals, addicts, recreational users or anyone other than 
people who are complying with the laws of their own State with regard 
to the medical use of marijuana.
  By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be 
reaffirming the power of citizen democracy and State and local 
government. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The 
Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter and said, 
``Dear Mr. Chairman'' to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), ``I 
am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of 
the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by 
Representative Maurice Hinchey to the appropriations measure on the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State which would effectively 
prohibit the enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in 
States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so-
called `medical' reasons.''
  It ends by saying, ``The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a 
significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and 
local law enforcement officials to reduce drug crime in every region of 
the Nation.''
  In the year 2001, the Supreme Court issued a notwithstanding rule and 
held that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the 
Controlled Substance Act. It has no currently accepted medical use and 
treatment in the United States. There are other drugs that now can take 
its place. It cannot be used outside the FDA-approved DEA-registered 
research.
  Marijuana is the most abused drug in America. More young people are 
now in treatment for marijuana dependency and for alcohol than for all 
the other illegal drugs. Marijuana use also presents a danger to others 
beyond the users themselves. In a roadside study of reckless drivers 
who are not impaired by alcohol, 45 percent tested positive for 
marijuana.
  It sends the wrong message. What a message it sends. I urge the 
defeat of the amendment which was, I might say, defeated in the full 
committee.

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
         Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to advise you of the strong 
     opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police 
     to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice 
     D. Hinchey to H.R. 2799, the appropriations measure for the 
     Department of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, 
     which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law 
     with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide 
     penalties for the use of the drug for so-called ``medical'' 
     reasons.
       In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective 
     enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of 
     marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the 
     use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes, 
     including violent crimes and crimes against property, which 
     go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking 
     organizations, particularly in the State of California where 
     marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for 
     methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a 
     significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell 
     for the same price as heroin on many of our nation's streets.
       The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant 
     disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local 
     law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the 
     country. On behalf of the more than 308,000 members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of 
     any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact 
     me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington 
     office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                       National Narcotic Officers'


                                       Associations Coalition,

                                   West Covina, CA, July 22, 2003.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
         Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Souder: I am writing to let you know of the 
     strong opposition of the 60,000 state and local law 
     enforcement officers in 40 states who are members of the 
     NNOAC to an amendment to be offered today to the Commerce/
     Justice/State Appropriations bill that would effectively 
     prohibit enforcement of federal marijuana law in states that 
     do not provide penalties for the use of so-called ``medical'' 
     marijuana.
       Because even a modest amount of federal marijuana 
     enforcement is now the only effective enforcement of the 
     marijuana laws in several such states, it provides a strong 
     deterrent effect to the use of harder drugs and other crimes, 
     including violent crimes and crimes against property. Federal 
     investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt 
     larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the 
     State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for 
     precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the State of 
     Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency 
     marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin.
       The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant 
     disruptive effect on state and local law enforcement of both 
     drug laws and of other crimes affecting public safety in 
     states where it would apply. We strongly encourage Members of 
     Congress who support their local police officers and law 
     enforcement to oppose this amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ronald E. Brooks,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I am one of the cosponsors of this, and I would like to first point 
out that the last statement you heard by your distinguished chairman is 
not about the amendment. This amendment does not legalize marijuana. I 
repeat, it does not legalize marijuana.
  It is a very straightforward amendment. It removes the Federal 
interference from local law, from local affairs where States have 
adopted through their legislative process or initiative process, a 
limited use of marijuana for medical purposes only. And in most cases, 
in all the cases I know, it has to be dispensed by a doctor.
  And the reason this amendment passed in California is because the 
elderly community, oftentimes suffering from pain, felt this was a 
remedy for pain. And the voters of California said, you should not deny 
this as long as it is being used in the medical arena. That is all this 
amendment does.

[[Page H7304]]

  It says, Federal Government, get off the back of those States that 
have used their legal process to have a limited use of marijuana for 
medical purposes. And those States are Alaska, California, Colorado, 
Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The 
States of Hawaii and Maryland have also passed the laws through their 
legislatures.
  This is not about legalization of marijuana. This is just saying, 
Federal Government, where those States have adopted those laws, just 
stay off their backs. The attorneys general of these States, the law 
enforcement in these communities, they support these operations.
  I know, because in Santa Cruz County they were very, very upset and 
petitioned when the Federal Government came in and did a raid. It upset 
everybody.
  So this process of not allowing States to go forward, I think, is 
wrong. This amendment provides States with voter-given authority to 
promulgate regulations to control the limited, limited, limited use of 
marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is an amendment about States' 
rights. It is about the sacredness of the electoral process and the 
sanctity of the citizens' votes. It is about treating people as if they 
have instructed their government to do so.
  That is all this amendment does. A very narrow, limiting amendment. 
Please adopt it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about what it 
purports to be about. It is bad amendment for so many reasons that I 
can barely touch on.
  First, let me clarify that the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, 
exactly knows what amendment we are talking about. In fact, in their 
letter, echoed also by a letter we received from the National Narcotics 
Officers' Association Coalition says specifically this:
  ``Federal investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt 
larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of 
California where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals, 
for methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a 
significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the 
same price as heroin'' on many of our Nation's streets.
  These officers in California and Washington, these States, opposed 
the referendums. They warned the people about what was going to happen 
and what they see happening in many places in these States.
  Let me reiterate a couple of basic points. It does not help sick 
people. First, this amendment is not about helping sick people. There 
are no generally recognized health benefits to smoking marijuana. We 
heard a false reference earlier to the Institutes of Medicine report 
where in it its verdicts said marijuana is not modern medicine. They 
issued a warning particularly against smoking marijuana in that report 
which, admittedly, was mixed, but did not endorse medicinal marijuana.
  The FDA has not considered or approved marijuana for this use. Its 
active ingredient, THC, is available in an improved pill form for those 
who want to use it. In fact, as people have said, there are many 
dangerous products that have ingredients in them that can be helpful, 
but that does not mean that the carrier of it, such as marijuana, is in 
fact medicinal. It is something inside that.
  In fact, I, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy and Human Resources recently met with officials from The 
Netherlands and in their Office of Medical Cannabis, even that nation, 
which is generally recognized for its extremely liberal drug policies, 
specifically has rejected the use of smoked marijuana for so-called 
``medicinal purposes,'' which these State referendums do not do.
  The American Lung Association has said that marijuana contains 50 to 
70 percent more of some cancer-causing tobacco smoke. This is very 
dangerous.
  Furthermore, in a recent article by the Deputy Director of ONDCP, 
Andrea Barthwell called The Haze of Misinformation Clouds the Issue of 
Medicinal Marijuana, she eloquently wrote, ``Before the passage of the 
Pure Food and Drug Act in 1907, Americans were exposed to a host of 
patent medicine cure-alls, everything from vegetable folk remedies to 
dangerous mixtures with morphine. The major component of most `cures' 
was alcohol, which probably explained why people said they felt 
better.''
  What we are hearing now is the same kind of classic peddling on the 
street of remedies that, in fact, are not remedies, when there are 
legal remedies to address the same question. The compounds in marijuana 
plants may have some medicinal marijuana but that is not marijuana and 
can be gotten elsewhere.
  Secondly, it makes no legal or governmental sense. In fact, it is 
fairly embarrassing we have this amendment on the floor. This amendment 
is premised on two extremely curious principles, first, that the 
Justice Department should not enforce a clear Federal law on the books; 
and as acknowledged by the sponsor of amendment and other supporters, 
the Supreme Court has ruled that States cannot usurp Federal law.
  If the sponsor of the amendment believes that Federal law should 
permit the medicinal use for marijuana, he ought to go through the 
legislative process and change the law. But the Justice Department, the 
DEA, and Members of Congress, I might add, have sworn an oath to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States which requires 
enforcement of the laws of the United States; and it is an incredibly 
dangerous precedent to retreat from that.
  Second, to ask Federal law enforcement to look the other way in some 
States, but not others is unfair and probably unconstitutional 
selective enforcement of a law.
  This amendment would only apply in certain States. So someone in 
Washington State would be exempt from enforcement of Federal marijuana 
laws if they claim it is for medicinal purposes, but someone in Indiana 
would not. What kind of law is this?
  In fact, we fought a Civil War over this. It is called nullification. 
States do not have the right. How would the minority feel, those who 
are advocating this, if civil rights laws could be overturned at the 
Federal level, and we said we were not going to enforce Federal rights 
because State can nullify a Federal law?
  If you want to change a Federal law, have the courage to change the 
Federal law. Do not try to nullify a Federal law.

                              {time}  2030

  It makes no police sense. In the States listed in the bill, the 
Federal Government is the only entity now doing effective marijuana 
enforcement. This bill would end that enforcement, even though the 
States in question are some of the most active drug States, and there 
are clear ties between marijuana traffic and ties in harder drugs, as 
well as marijuana traffic and other violent crime.
  In the State of Washington, for example, streams of high-potency 
marijuana are selling for more in Indiana and New York and Boston than 
cocaine and heroin because its HTC content is not what we saw in the 
1960s, 2 to 4 percent, but in the 18 to 30 percent range. That is 
extremely dangerous to individuals. This amendment would in effect 
prohibit DEA from enforcing marijuana laws if it claimed it was for 
medicinal purposes.
  For that reason, State and local law enforcement officers have 
opposed this amendment, including the National Narcotic Officers and 
the FOP, Fraternal Order of Police.
  Lastly, State medical marijuana laws are a sham.
  Finally, we have seen these laws do not operate as intended. A State 
audit in Oregon found that many of those who obtained so-called 
medicinal marijuana have not provided documentation of their claims. A 
survey of many HIV patients who claimed to use marijuana for medical 
purposes found that 57 percent smoked marijuana for mental, rather than 
physical, reasons and that a third admitted outright that they had 
smoked marijuana for recreational purposes. Even in California, the 
State is trying to revoke the license of a physician who has written

[[Page H7305]]

7,500 marijuana recommendations for patients without conducting any 
medical exams.
  Lastly, we heard that this was citizen-led. What a joke. What we have 
are people who historically, including some Members of this body, who 
favor drug legalization in general support this as medicinal marijuana. 
In fact, what they back more is legalization of marijuana, and this has 
not been a citizen-led effort.
  A man named George Soros has poured millions of dollars into these 
referendums and the citizen groups have predominantly opposed them 
against an overwhelming number of ads masquerading behind a few herding 
individuals who have been given false promise by the modern-day medical 
hustlers, just like they did in the 1900s. This is embarrassing from a 
legal standpoint and embarrassing from a body that should be upholding 
the laws of the United States and to be fighting the terrorism on our 
streets where people are dying and here we are trying to give them 
cover for this pro-drug movement by acting like it is medicine.
  It is not medicine. If my colleagues believe it is medicine, get it 
out of the main and into the people who need it. Do not hide behind 
marijuana and make it more available so more kids can die in my 
district and in my colleagues' districts as well.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  As a cosponsor of the amendment, I rise in support of this amendment 
and appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York has brought it 
to the floor.
  I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the 
law; and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and 
tenth amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the 
Constitution is another.
  This has a lot to do with State law; but more importantly, as a 
physician, I see this bill as something dealing with compassion. As a 
physician, I have seen those who have died with cancer and getting 
chemotherapy and with AIDS and having nothing to help them.
  There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed 
with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to 
use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet 
although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him 
and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a 
man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and 
when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying 
the State law.
  That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, 
that there has been so much usurpation of States' rights and States' 
abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the 
system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be 
monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake 
not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my 
colleagues.
  There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than 
illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of 
legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than 
there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten 
out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a 
physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The 
terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, 
something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of 
marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal 
Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State 
law of California.
  Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. 
There is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that 
is purely marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly 
medication or a deadly drug that kills literally tens of thousands in 
this country, it is alcohol. And how many people want to go back to 
prohibition? I mean, nobody's proposing that, and yet that is a deadly 
drug.
  The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a 
little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this 
is a compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then 
we have to vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase 
the use of bad drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a 
parent and a grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the 
unwise use of drugs is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a 
medical problem; but we have turned this into a monster to the point 
where we will not even allow a person dying from cancer and AIDS to get 
a little bit of relief.
  I strongly urge support and a positive vote for this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and in very 
strong disagreement with the last speaker.
  The reality is his point would be well taken if indeed there were 
medical evidence that medicinal marijuana helped people, but there is 
none. In his entire testimony there was not a single citation to a 
study that showed medical marijuana, in fact, helps, as my colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), pointed out earlier where 
indeed the medical evidence is to the contrary. And that leads me to an 
important part of the case against this amendment I think it is very 
important for people to understand, and that is, how did we get where 
we are?
  We got to this position because in a handful of States across the 
country, valiant initiatives have been raised to legalize medical 
marijuana. My State happens to be one of those States, but let me make 
it clear to my colleagues what happened in those campaigns in those 
States.
  First, make no mistake about it, law enforcement agents in every 
single one of those States opposed the medical marijuana initiative. 
They did so for good and solid reasons: number one, there is no medical 
benefit; but, number two, marijuana is a precursor drug.
  Make no mistake about it, today's marijuana is not the marijuana that 
we had 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. The potency of today's 
marijuana is dramatically higher, shockingly higher than the marijuana 
that existed and was around in the 1960s. But what else happened in 
those campaigns?
  The other important thing that happened in those campaigns is that 
the people were led astray by massive spending. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), pointed out that some proponents 
of this idea, including one who happens to be a resident of my State, 
have spent many millions of dollars advocating the legalization of 
marijuana; and they have outspent the opponents of these measures by 
two, three, four, five, 10 times. In my State of Arizona in two 
different campaigns the proponents of legalizing medical marijuana 
outspent the opponents by a dramatic amount of money. When we stack the 
debate, when only one side of the argument gets out, of course they are 
going to win.
  Let us talk about what happens with this marijuana, and I disagree so 
strongly with my colleague who spoke just a moment ago. The reality is 
that in this Nation we have a serious drug problem confronting our 
youth, and why do we have that drug problem? We have that drug problem 
because of this very debate, because as a Nation we have not decided 
that drugs, illegal drugs, marijuana for one and many others, are bad. 
Indeed, we have leaders of the Nation saying, oh, it is all right, we 
are not really going to go against it; we are not really going to 
enforce these laws; we do not care about these laws. How do my 
colleagues think kids react to that?
  I will tell my colleagues how I raised my kids. I raised my kids to 
see these are the rules, you violate these rules, you will be punished. 
You know what? My kids understood the rules because when they violated 
them, we punished them.
  That is not what we do with drugs in America. We say if it is a drug 
we will

[[Page H7306]]

look the other way; we will let it go; we are not really committed to 
enforcing our Nation's drugs law. Now look at the hypocrisy, the 
outrageous hypocrisy of this proposal. Now we are going to say, yeah, 
we have Federal laws against these drugs; we have Federal laws against 
marijuana; we believe that those laws are valid and good and 
appropriate, but you know what, in some States we will not enforce them 
because in some States we do not want to enforce them.
  So if the FBI is dealing with a person and they happen to be in 
Maryland, they get one set of rules; but if they happen to be in 
Arizona, they get another set of rules.
  What about those States that border each other? What about New Jersey 
right next to New York? What about Arizona right next to California? 
What about all kinds of other border jurisdictions?
  We want the laws of this Nation to say that in this State the Federal 
antidrug laws on marijuana will be enforced, but right across the river 
in Kansas City, Missouri, versus Kansas City, Kansas, we are not going 
to enforce that law? Do my colleagues not think that will send a 
confused message to our kids about our Nation's policy on illegal 
drugs? Do my colleagues not think that will lead to more kids getting 
involved in drugs?
  The most outrageous statement made on this floor on this House 
tonight was the statement that sending the message to our kids that 
some drugs are okay will not lead them to use those drugs or other 
drugs and will not lead to an increase in the use of illegal drugs. 
That is the most outrageous and absurd concept we can possibly embrace, 
and I hope this House will reject it.
  We cannot afford to confuse our Nation's children. We cannot afford 
to tell them that marijuana is okay. We cannot afford to let them begin 
to use the dramatically more potent marijuana that is on the streets 
today and coming through my State of Arizona, to your State and your 
district by some confused policy that says, well, we think it is bad in 
some States, but we do not think it is bad in others.
  The truth is, the gentleman who spoke before me believes we should 
legalize all drugs, and that is a valid and fair position; but take 
that issue directly to the substance of this Congress, propose it as a 
law, propose to amend the Federal laws that prohibit the possession and 
the use and the sale of marijuana and talk that debate straight up. Do 
not do it by subterfuge. Do not do it under the table. Do not do it by 
saying in one State we are going to enforce the Federal law and in 
another State we are not, because if we want to confuse a generation of 
America's children, that is the way to do it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to make it clear that we are not doing anything by 
subterfuge here. We are just saying that in 10 States of this Nation 
the people have decided that is a legitimate practice for people who 
have certain medical conditions. Twenty percent of the States have said 
so, and most of them by referendum; and 60 percent or more voted for 
that in those referendums.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  There is a context here which is worth reflecting on, and that is the 
law enforcement policies of an administration which cannot effectively 
meet the challenge of international terrorism, but is ready to wage a 
phony drug war, including locking up people dying of cancer simply 
because those poor souls seek relief from horrible pain.
  I ask, can we truly be so lacking in compassion? This is not about 
legalizing marijuana. That is just a smoke screen. It is an amendment 
to end Federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in 
States where medical marijuana is legal. Despite marijuana's recognized 
therapeutic value, including a National Academy of Science Institute of 
Medicine report, recommending its use in certain circumstances, Federal 
law refuses to recognize the importance and safety of medicinal 
marijuana.
  Instead, Federal penalties for all marijuana use, regardless of 
purpose, include up to a year in prison for the possession of even 
small amounts.
  Let us reflect again on how cynical and how dark it is to even 
contemplate sending someone to prison for a year when they may not even 
have that much time left in their life; but since 1996, eight States 
have enacted laws to allow very ill patients to use medical marijuana 
in spite of Federal law. The present administration has sought to 
override such State statutes, viewing the use of medicinal marijuana 
for purposes in the same light as heroin or cocaine.

                              {time}  2045

  Last year, Federal agents raided the Women and Men's Alliance for 
Medical Marijuana, an organization that under California State law 
legally dispensed marijuana to patients whose doctors had recommended 
it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five percent of this organization's 
225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.
  This is about compassion. The Federal Government should use its power 
to help terminally ill citizens, not arrest them. And States deserve to 
have the right to make their own decisions regarding the use of medical 
marijuana. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me this time.
  I had the opportunity in Congress some 2\1/2\ years ago to chair the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for 
some 2 years. During that time, I held the first hearings, really, in 
Congress on the question of legalization of marijuana; and I tried to 
approach the issue of the medical use of marijuana from an open 
standpoint.
  We conducted hearings and brought in what we considered were the best 
medical experts, and we dug into all of the testimony. And, my 
colleagues, I can say here tonight that we did not find one scintilla 
of evidence that there was any medical benefit by consuming marijuana, 
whether an individual was healthy or whether they were ill, or 
terminally ill. There was no evidence to that effect.
  It has become sort of a cause celebre to promote these initiatives 
with huge amounts of money. And at first blush, I think people support 
some of these as possibly being compassionate, as we hear here.
  We have also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will 
relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that 
that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, 
whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it 
will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough 
marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, 
they would not have any pain.
  What we did learn in our testimony and what I have learned over the 
several years that I have served on that committee in the Congress is, 
we did learn this one thing. We learned that the marijuana that we have 
on the market today, and we have heard this from the previous chairman, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others, who cited that 
today's marijuana is not the marijuana we had some 20 or 30 years ago. 
There is a several hundred percent increase in potency in what is on 
the market.
  We also heard that marijuana is the greatest substance abuse of our 
teenagers, even exceeding, believe it or not, alcohol today. We also 
learned that there are more than 19,000 drug-related deaths in the 
United States, overdose deaths, which now exceed homicides. And 
everything we do towards trying to glorify or utilize marijuana for 
whatever use or whatever purpose does lead more of our young people to 
use this.
  Marijuana is a gateway drug, and so we end up with a death toll that 
we have seen so painfully across this Nation.
  So if the object here is to relieve pain, that is not what is being 
done. It will cause pain.
  Almost every police group opposes the Hinchey amendment. Let me just 
read some of the folks that oppose it. The Fraternal Order of Police, 
the world's largest police union, made up of 300,000 members of State 
and local

[[Page H7307]]

enforcement officers nationwide, and the National Narcotics Officers' 
Association Coalition, with more than 60,000 members, have expressed 
strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment that would prohibit 
enforcement of Federal marijuana laws in some States but not in others.
  Police groups oppose the amendment because Federal enforcement of 
marijuana helps deter use and trafficking in harder drugs and also in 
related crimes against property and some of our most violent crime.
  Finally, some of those police groups that oppose the Hinchey 
amendment have said to us, we strongly encourage Members of Congress 
who support their local police officers and law enforcement to oppose 
this amendment. And we have letters from the National Narcotics 
Officers' Association Coalition and the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of 
Police stating their clear opposition.
  Again, I think the presentation of this amendment has been that this 
would relieve pain and be compassionate. My colleagues, this will cause 
pain, and there are many who confirm that.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 16 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. I believe we should respect the State authority in regards 
to medical marijuana, and I remind my colleagues that we are not 
talking about illegal drugs, we are talking about medicinal marijuana, 
legally supported by 10 States.
  As my colleagues know, in my home State of California, voters 
overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, allowing the use of marijuana 
for medicinal purposes. Like my constituents, I believe that doctors 
should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from 
cancer, or AIDS, or glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating 
diseases.
  The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma Counties, Mr. 
Chairman, just over the Golden Gate Bridge, and my colleagues will not 
be surprised, it is a very progressive area in our country, but they 
want their doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana for their 
patients suffering from debilitating diseases; and they believe that 
the Federal Government should get out of the way. They should not butt 
in. And that is why I support this amendment, because it would stop the 
Justice Department from punishing those who are abiding by their 
State's laws.
  Please join me in supporting this important amendment so that those 
who suffer from debilitating diseases can get relief without the fear 
of Federal interference.
  Mr. Chairman, I call on all Members of this Congress, particularly 
those who believe in States' rights, to let States represent their 
voters. It is not okay to pick and choose where States can butt in and 
where they have the ultimate responsibility based on ideologies.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to begin by reading from an 
editorial that appeared in the New York Daily News this past Sunday, 
written by a Richard Brookhiser, who is a senior editor of the National 
Review, a very noted conservative magazine founded by William F. 
Buckley.
  He writes as follows: ``Earlier this year, the New York State 
Association of County Health Officials, as cautious a bunch as you will 
find in the medical community, urged New York lawmakers to pass 
legislation to legalize the medical use of marijuana. It is past time 
to remove patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and other scourges from the 
battlefield of the war on drugs.
  ``The legalization of medical marijuana would be a step forward for 
the health of all New Yorkers, the Association of County Health 
Officials declared. Marijuana has proven to be effective in the 
treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and 
those suffering from severe pain and nausea.
  ``I discovered,'' that is, he did; I am quoting the article. ``I 
discovered marijuana's benefits while receiving chemotherapy for 
testicular cancer in 1992. Part way through my treatment, the 
conventional antinausea drugs prescribed by my doctors stopped working. 
Marijuana was the only thing that kept my head out of the toilet.
  ``I was lucky. As a member of the media elite, I probably wasn't at 
huge risk for a drug bust. Living here, I was able to obtain my herb 
under the cover of urban anonymity. But people shouldn't have to depend 
on professional status or the luck of geography. Putting such patients 
in jail for the `crime' of trying to relieve some of the misery caused 
by their illnesses is cruel.
  ``The consensus regarding marijuana's medical value grows every day. 
Just this May, The Lancet Neurology noted that marijuana's active 
components are effective against pain in virtually every lab test 
scientists have devised, and even speculated that it could become `the 
aspirin of the 21st century.'
  ``Marijuana does have risks, but so do all drugs. Recent researchers 
documented that relatively simple vaporizers can allow users to inhale 
the active ingredients with almost none of the irritants in smoke.
  ``Ten States now have laws allowing medical use of marijuana with a 
physician's recommendation, and those laws have been successful. Last 
year, the General Accounting Office interviewed 37 law enforcement 
agencies in those States, reporting that the majority of those 
interviewed `indicated that medical marijuana laws has had little 
impact on their law enforcement activities.'
  ``As a conservative, I am not surprised that common sense is bubbling 
up from the State level while Federal marijuana laws remain stuck in 
the 1930s. Federal law will change eventually, because science, common 
sense, and human decency require it.''
  That is the article. Mr. Chairman, I am not a conservative, as most 
of my colleagues know. I am a liberal. But I certainly agree with this 
conservative writer and editor.
  The fact of the matter is, we ought to let doctors prescribe the 
medicines they feel would be most effective for their patients. It is 
not up to us to stand up on the floor of this House and declare with 
the expertise of the politicians that we are that marijuana, or 
morphine, or tetracycline is not an effective drug. That is the job of 
the doctors and the medical professionals to make those judgments.
  We can prosecute doctors or others who may abuse this privilege. We 
allow morphine's use for medical purposes. No one has legalized the 
general use of morphine, or heroin, from which it is derived. But for 
medical purposes, we use it as a painkiller all the time. Most of our 
drugs, if misused, are dangerous and even toxic, but we allow their use 
to heal the sick under a physician's supervision. Why should marijuana 
be any different?
  Sure, it is a dangerous drug. I certainly do not deny that. But for 
certain diseases, for certain conditions, it can help people. It can 
make their lives bearable.
  Let the doctors make those decisions, not the politicians. Let the 
doctors decide what will work for someone's illness, and let them be 
subject to the normal medical discipline procedures for the normal uses 
of the law for those who would abuse their ability to prescribe a drug.
  Mr. Chairman, let marijuana be treated as a drug the way morphine is, 
the way other powerful drugs are. Let people be healed. Let them feel 
better. Let people with HIV or AIDS or cancer be able to hold their 
food. Let them survive longer. And let us fight the drug war on a 
different battlefield.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. I actually had not planned on speaking on this issue this 
evening, but after sitting in my office and hearing some of the other 
arguments, I felt compelled to come over and at least, if I could, 
perhaps provide some illumination on this subject.
  The last speaker, in fact, talked about science, common sense, and 
human decency as dictating that we must make marijuana available to our 
sickest patients.

[[Page H7308]]

                              {time}  2100

  But why, indeed, would we want to make a substance available that is 
widely recognized as a gateway drug which could lead to greater drug 
use?
  My friend from Arizona pointed out that drug use amongst our youth 
and our children is increasing at a rapid rate, and we need to do what 
we can to stop that. I do not believe that making marijuana generally 
available, even for medicinal purposes, is going to further that 
curtailment of drug use in children or young people.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that if we want to legally 
prescribe medication to deal with our patients' suffering, that is, 
anorexia, Marinol is available today; and I believe it is legal in all 
States, not just 10 states. What is Marinol? Marinol is a synthetic 
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is also the 
naturally occurring compound of Cannabis sativa, or marijuana.
  So you see, Mr. Chairman, our physicians already have the active 
ingredient in marijuana available to prescribe to their patients today; 
and, in fact, I will include for the Record the package insert from 
Marinol which details the double-blind placebo studies that show that 
Marinol has been useful as an appetite stimulant and an antiemetic, 
that is, it inhibits nausea and vomiting in individuals who are 
suffering from terminal HIV/AIDS and individuals who are undergoing 
chemotherapy. And perhaps the beauty of using Marinol is your patient 
does not have to be terminally ill, they just have to be ill, because 
Marinol can be used for a short term. In fact, that is what it is 
recommended, to be used over the short term to deal with those two 
adverse consequences of chemotherapy.
  Mr. Chairman, compassionate care is available in this country. Our 
doctors are providing compassionate care. It is approved by the Food 
and Drug Administration. It is approved by the DEA.

                     Marinol (Dronabinol) Capsules


                              description

       Dronabinol is a cannabinoid designated chemically as (6aR-
     trans)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-
     dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol.
       Dronabinol, the active ingredient in Marinol Capsules, is 
     synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC). Delta-
     9-tetrahydrocannabinol is also a naturally occurring 
     component of Cannabis sativa L. (Marijuana).
       Dronabinol is a light yellow resinous oil that is sticky at 
     room temperature and hardens upon refrigeration. Dronabinol 
     is insoluble in water and is formulated in sesame oil. It has 
     a pKa of 10.6 and an octanol-water partition coefficient: 
     6,000:1 at pH 7.
       Capsules for oral administration: Marinol Capsules is 
     supplied as round, soft gelatin capsules containing either 
     2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg dronabinol. Each Marinol Capsule is 
     formulated with the following inactive ingredients: FD&C Blue 
     No. 1 (5 mg), FD&C Red No. 40 (5 mg), FD&C Yellow No. 6 (5 mg 
     and 10 mg), gelatin, glycerin, methylparaben, propylparaben, 
     sesame oil, and titanium dioxide.


                           clinical pathology

       Dronabinol is an orally active cannabinoid which, like 
     other cannabinoids, has complex effects on the central 
     nervous system (CNS), including central sympathomimetic 
     activity. Cannabinoid receptors have been discovered in 
     neural tissues. These receptors may play a role in mediating 
     the effects of dronabinol and other cannabinoids.
       Pharmacodynamics: Dronabinol-induced sympathomimetic 
     activity may result in tachycardia and/or conjunctival 
     injection. Its effects on blood pressure are inconsistent, 
     but occasional subjects have experienced orthostatic 
     hypotension and/or syncope upon abrupt standing.
       Dronabinol also demonstrates reversible effects on 
     appetite, mood, cognition, memory, and perception. These 
     phenomena appear to be dose-related, increasing in frequency 
     with higher dosages, and subject to great interpatient 
     variability.
       After oral administration, dronabinol has an onset of 
     action of approximately 0.5 to 1 hours and peak effect at 2 
     to 4 hours. Duration of action for psychoactive effects is 4 
     to 6 hours, but the appetite stimulant effect of dronabinol 
     may continue for 24 hours or longer after administration.
       Tachyphylaxis and tolerance develop to some of the 
     pharmacologic effects of dronabinol and other cannabinoids 
     with chronic use, suggesting an indirect effect on 
     sympathetic neurons. In a study of the pharmacodynamics of 
     chronic dronabinol exposure, healthy male volunteers (N = 12) 
     received 210 mg/day dronabinol, administered orally in 
     divided doses, for 16 days. An initial tachycardia induced by 
     dronabinol was replaced successively by normal sinus rhythm 
     and then bradycardia. A decrease in supine blood pressure, 
     made worse by standing, was also observed initially. These 
     volunteers developed tolerance to the cardiovascular and 
     subjective adverse CNS effects of dronabinol within 12 days 
     of treatment initiation.
       Tachyphylaxis and tolerance do not, however, appear to 
     develop to the appetite stimulant effect of 
     Marinol' Capsules. In studies involving patients 
     with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the appetite 
     stimulant effect of Marinol' Capsules has been 
     sustained for up to five months in clinical trials, at 
     dosages ranging from 2.5 mg/day to 20 mg/day.
       Pharmacokinetics: Absorption and Distribution: 
     Marinol' (Dronabinol) Capsules is almost 
     completely absorbed (90 to 95%) after single oral doses. Due 
     to the combined effects of first pass hepatic metabolism and 
     high lipid solubility, only 10 to 20% of the administered 
     dose reaches the systemic circulation. Dronabinol has a large 
     apparent volume of distribution, approximately 10 L/kg, 
     because of its lipid solubility. The plasma protein binding 
     of dronabinol and its metabolites is approximately 97%.
       The elimination phase of dronabinol can be described using 
     a two compartment model with an initial (alpha) half-life of 
     about 4 hours and a terminal (beta) half-life of 25 to 36 
     hours. Because of its large volume of distribution, 
     dronabinol and its metabolites may be excreted at low levels 
     for prolonged periods of time.
       Metabolites: Dronabinol undergoes extensive first-pass 
     hepatic metabolism, primarily by microsomal hydroxylation, 
     yielding both active and inactive metabolites. Dronabinol and 
     its principal active metabolite, 11-OH-delta-9-THC, are 
     present in approximately equal concentrations in plasma. 
     Concentrations of both parent drug and metabolite peak at 
     approximately 2 to 4 hours after oral dosing and decline over 
     several days. Values for clearance average about 0.2 L/kg-hr, 
     but are highly variable due to the complexity of cannabinoid 
     distribution.
       Elimination: Dronabinol and its biotransformation products 
     are excreted in both feces and urine. Biliary excretion is 
     the major route of elimination with about half of a radio-
     labeled oral dose being recovered from the feces within 72 
     hours as contrasted with 10 to 15% recovered from urine. Less 
     than 5% of an oral dose is recovered unchanged in the feces.
       Following single dose administration, low levels of 
     dronabinol metabolites have been detected for more than 5 
     weeks in the urine and feces.
       In a study of Marinol Capsules involving AIDS patients, 
     urinary cannabinoid/creatinine concentration ratios were 
     studied bi-weekly over a six week period. The urinary 
     cannabinoid/creatinine ratio was closely correlated with 
     dose. No increase in the cannabinoid/creatinine ratio was 
     observed after the first two weeks of treatment, indicating 
     that steady-state cannabionoid levels had been reached. This 
     conclusion is consistent with predictions based on the 
     observed terminal half-life of dronabinol.
       Special Populations: The pharmacokinetic profile of 
     Marinol Capsules has not been investigated in either 
     pediatric or geriatric patients.


                            clinical trials

       Appetite Stimulation: The appetite stimulant effect of 
     Marinol (Dronabinol) Capsules in the treatment of AIDS-
     related anorexia associated with weight loss was studied in a 
     randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 
     139 patients. The initial dosage of Marinol Capsules in all 
     patients was 5 mg/day, administered in doses of 2.5 mg one 
     hour before lunch and one hour before supper. In pilot 
     studies, early morning administration of Marinol Capsules 
     appeared to have been associated with an increased frequency 
     of adverse experiences, as compared to dosing later in the 
     day. The effect of Marinol Capsules on appetite, weight, 
     mood, and nausea was measured at scheduled intervals during 
     the six-week treatment period. Side effects (feeling high, 
     dizziness, confusion, somnolence) occurred in 13 of 72 
     patients (18%) at this dosage level and the dosage was 
     reduced to 2.5 mg/day, administered as a single dose at 
     supper or bedtime.
       As compared to placebo, Marinol Capsules treatment 
     resulted in a statistically significant improvement in 
     appetite as measured by visual analog scale (see figure). 
     Trends toward improved body weight and mood, and decreases in 
     nausea were also seen.
       After completing the 6-week study, patients were allowed to 
     continue treatment with Marinol Capsules in an open-label 
     study, in which there was a sustained improvement in 
     appetite.
       Antiemetic: Marinol (Dronabinol) Capsules treatment of 
     chemotherapy-induced emesis was evaluated in 454 patients 
     with cancer, who received a total of 750 courses of treatment 
     of various malignancies. The antiemetic efficacy of Marinol 
     Capsules was greatest in patients receiving cytotoxic therapy 
     with MOPP for Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Marinol 
     Capsules dosages ranged from 2.5 mg/day to 40 mg/day, 
     administered in equally divided doses every four to six hours 
     (four times daily). Escalating the Marinol Capsules dose 
     above 7 mg/mg2 Capsules dose above 7 mg/
     m2 increased the frequency of adverse experiences, 
     with no additional antiemetic benefit.
       Combination antiemetic therapy with Marinol Capsules and a 
     phenothiazine (prochlorperazine) may result in synergistic or 
     additive antiemetic effects and attenuate the toxicities 
     associated with each of the agents.

[[Page H7309]]

                      individualization of dosages

       The pharmacologic effects of Marinol (Dronabinol) Capsules 
     are dose-related and subject to considerable interpatient 
     variability. Therefore, dosage individualization is critical 
     in achieving the maximum benefit of Marinol Capsules 
     treatment.
       Appetite Stimulation: In the clinical trials, the majority 
     of patients were treated with 5 mg/day Marinol' 
     Capsules, although the dosages ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg/day. 
     For an adult:
       1. Begin with 2.5 mg before lunch and 2.5 mg before supper. 
     If CNS symptoms (feeling high, dizziness, confusion, 
     somnolence) do occur, they usually resolve in 1 to 3 days 
     with continued dosage.
       2. If CNS symptoms are severe or persistent, reduce the 
     dose to 2.5 mg before supper. If symptoms continue to be a 
     problem, taking the single dose in the evening or at bedtime 
     may reduce their severity.
       3. When adverse effects are absent or minimal and further 
     therapeutic effect is desired, increase the dose to 2.5 mg 
     before lunch and 5 mg before supper or 5 and 5 mg. Although 
     most patients respond to 2.5 mg twice daily, 10 mg twice 
     daily has been tolerated in about half of the patients in 
     appetite stimulation studies.
       The pharmacologic effects of Marinol' Capsules 
     are reversible upon treatment cessation.
       Antiemetic: Most patients respond to 5 mg three or four 
     times daily. Dosage may be escalated during a chemotherapy 
     cycle or at subsequent cycles, based upon initial results. 
     Therapy should be initiated at the lowest recommended dosage 
     and titrated to clinical response. Administration of 
     Marinol' Capsules with phenothiazines, such as 
     prochlorperazine, has resulted in improved efficacy as 
     compared to either drug alone, without additional toxicity.
       Pediatrics: Marinol' Capsules is not recommended 
     for AIDS-related anorexia in pediatric patients because it 
     has not been studied in this population. The pediatric dosage 
     for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis is the same 
     as in adults. Caution is recommended in prescribing 
     Marinol' Capsules for children because of the 
     psychoactive effects.
       Geriatrics: Caution is advised in prescribing 
     Marinol' Capsules in elderly patients because they 
     are generally more sensitive to the psychoactive effects of 
     drugs. In antiemetic studies, no difference in tolerance or 
     efficacy was apparent in patients 55 years old.


                         indications and usage

       Marinol' (Dronabinol) Capsules is indicated for 
     the treatment of:
       1. anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with 
     AIDS; and
       2. nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy 
     in patients who have failed to respond adequately to 
     conventional antiemetic treatments.


                           contraindications

       Marinol' (Dronabinol) Capsules is 
     contraindicated in any patient who has a history of 
     hypersensitivity to any cannabinoid or sesame oil.


                                warnings

       Patients receiving treatment with Marinol' 
     Capsules should be specifically warned not to drive, operate 
     machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until it is 
     established that they are able to tolerate the drug and to 
     perform such tasks safely.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, for two reasons. Number one, I believe in freedom. I believe 
in democracy and the democratic process. If the people of 10 States 
have voted, I guess eight of them have actually voted through 
referendum and two through their other legislative process to legalize 
the medical use of marijuana within those States, it is totally 
contrary to our way of life in the United States of America to say that 
those States, the people of those States, do not have a right to set 
their standards, their legal standards in those States.
  There are dry counties, and there are wet counties. You can have a 
State that is right next to one State. That is no argument. You do not 
have to have one rule for the whole country. That is what federalism is 
all about. And what greater use of federalism or more important use of 
federalism than for people to control substances as they are consumed 
in their own area? I would suggest that in my State, for example, where 
the people did, by a large majority, vote for legalizing the medical 
use of marijuana that it is a travesty for the Federal Government to 
send police into my State and arrest people and throw them in a cage, 
in jail, for doing something that the vast majority of people in my 
State voted to make a legal practice. This is contrary to American 
tradition. This is not right. It has only been in this last 100 years 
that America has decided to go haywire and create this type of 
oppression which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people in 
these areas.
  Number two, let us just face it, it has not worked. The process that 
we have tried to use to prevent drug use has not worked. The drug war 
is a miserable failure. That does not mean we should give up. I am not 
advocating that. I do not advocate legalizing drugs, but I think that 
it is time to take a second look at what has been going on. It has not 
succeeded at all in preventing people from using drugs, and it has been 
a catastrophe in the black and other minority communities where young 
people get thrown into jail at an early age and their whole life is 
ruined. We need to take a second look at drugs in general and how we 
are going to try to convince young people not to use drugs.
  By the way, I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer and I wrote almost 
every one of his speeches about drugs at a time when we convinced 
America's youth to stop using drugs and there was the greatest decline 
in the use of drugs during Reagan's administration as any time in our 
history. I can assure you in Ronald Reagan's speeches, he talked about 
just relying on law enforcement was not the answer. And it certainly is 
not the answer in dealing with medical marijuana that has been approved 
by the majority of people in various States. Lynn Nofziger, Ronald 
Reagan's adviser; William F. Buckley, the editor of National Review; 
Bob Ehrlich, the Governor of Maryland, all of these people understand 
what this is all about and understand that those people opposing this 
liberalization of the medical use of marijuana are living in a bygone 
era.
  Let me just note this. My mother passed away about 4 or 5 years ago. 
One of the factors in my determination tonight to stand up here before 
you is that I remember when the doctor told me that she had lost her 
appetite and I was going to have to feed her. I was very pleased that I 
had voted for making the medical use of marijuana legal because I could 
not look at myself in the face knowing that I had done that to other 
people who were confronted by their mother. What are we doing to 
someone, and they do not have to be critically ill. What about an older 
person that has lost their appetite and their will to live? If a doctor 
thinks it is going to help them to use marijuana, it is immoral for us 
to try to put people in jail who are moving to alleviate that type of 
horror that people have in their own lives.
  Are we compassionate or are we not? I suggest that we vote for 
compassion and freedom and support this liberalization.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is awful when your parents get older and 
have different struggles and we need to look and we have found drugs to 
give them to try to address this question. That is not what this debate 
is about. The gentleman from California and I have been friends for 
many years. We grew up in the same conservative youth organization, 
Young Americans for Freedom. We had these same disagreements when we 
were in YAF a long time ago on legalization of marijuana. We had a very 
close vote in the national organization. It was an organization founded 
by William F. Buckley. Richard Brookhiser came up through that same 
organization. What we called, and I was a more traditionalist 
conservative, the libertarians believed at that time, and in many cases 
still do, as we heard from the most consistent libertarian in the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), that drug laws are wrong 
and that States can nullify Federal laws. I do not agree with that. I 
believe there are times when the elected representatives of the 
American people can make national policy and that is what we are 
debating right now. Does the Federal Government have a right to make a 
law by elected citizens all across the United States that will be 
upheld because they believe it protects the citizens of the United 
States in the best way?
  Many States conceivably could pass different laws on civil rights to 
nullify some of the things we do here and other laws. We cannot operate 
that way. We heard earlier today that people said on the other side 
that we should support the first responders and our police forces. They 
are unanimous across the country as a whole saying

[[Page H7310]]

that they are against any weakening of the marijuana laws with the 
signals they are sending. This is a fundamental debate about what 
direction we are going in national drug law. This is a backdoor way to 
move in. It is not about compassion. We need to look for additional 
ways if Marinol does not solve it all, but it does and in the new, 
improved ways it actually appears to deal with vomiting.
  People can promise all types of different things. We can feel the 
pain, but we should not change laws that are working. And if we want to 
change those laws on the national drug policy, you should come and 
change the national drug laws. It would be a travesty if this House in 
effect nullifies Federal law. This is not just nullifying Federal law. 
The case was brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that 
the Attorney General and DEA have an obligation to enforce Federal law.
  I believe that the courts too often have usurped State authority and 
taken the 10th amendment the wrong direction. This is not about that. 
This is about when Congress passed a law under the Constitution that 
said in interstate commerce, which narcotics move across interstate 
commerce, which was not a liberal interpretation of that clause but a 
strict interpretation of that clause from a conservative perspective, 
all except the more anarcho-libertarians, as we used to call them, 
believe that in drug laws the Federal Government historically has had 
the right to enforce a Federal law. The conservative movement is not 
divided. We have a few of the libertarian fringe who I respect for 
their opinions but strongly disagree just as we did when we were kids; 
now we are grownups, and we still have the same disagreement.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
New York for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for 
the work that he has done. We have traveled together. I think anyone 
that comes to the floor of the House and discusses this issue obviously 
is not concerned about the political liability that the headlines will 
read that you stood on the floor of the House to support the free and 
open use of marijuana and the promotion of drug use in the United 
States of America. That is why I think it is very important to clarify 
the distinctive arguments that are being made on either side. In fact, 
I disagree with the interpretation of nullification when, in fact, it 
is an issue of States' rights that will not be harmful to others.
  I believe the Federal law is relevant when the Federal law seeks to 
solve a problem that is, in fact, harmful overall to all Americans. The 
civil rights example that the gentleman from Indiana used was an issue 
where the United States wanted to fall on the side of what was right 
and end the most heinous of behaviors in the 20th century, and that was 
segregation, lynching; and so we wrote civil rights laws to give 
equality to all Americans.
  This issue of the medical use of marijuana is a question of the 
patients asking and demanding relief. I guess there is no one that can 
stand in the shoes of a patient who is suffering from the horrible pain 
of cancer. No one, none of us who are standing here healthy today can 
understand the absolute pain of not being able either to eat or suffer 
through the treatment that might be provided by normal medical 
procedures.
  My understanding of the States that have voted for the use of medical 
marijuana is, in fact, regulated processes; is, in fact, structures in 
place to ensure that this is not a situation of drug running. So I do 
not know why we have come to the floor of the House and not respect the 
amendment that the gentleman from New York has put forward, which is to 
cease the utilization of Federal funds for intervention in a process 
that has been accepted by States and regulated by States. 
Appropriately, I believe, the 10th amendment, leave-it-to-States, 
States' rights, should be the acceptable call of the day. That should 
be the law.
  These nine or 10 States have opted to be able to choose in their 
regulated manner to allow for physicians and others to be able to 
prescribe marijuana for use to be able to help their patients and to 
stop the pain that they are suffering from. I cannot imagine that we 
would not want to be problem solvers on this issue and take the 
responsible route, which is to allow States who have been responsible 
in their own areas and suggested that medical marijuana is a vital and 
important use.
  I would hope my colleagues would see this separately from the war on 
drugs when there is a great debate as to whether the war on drugs is 
effective. I too am not interested in legalizing drug use, but I am 
interested in making sure that the sick are taken care of and States' 
rights are protected in this instance.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate my opposition to this amendment. I 
would agree with the gentlewoman who just spoke that each side has an 
argument of merit in this debate. I compliment her for standing up and 
speaking out her views. But I would say I strongly disagree.
  Let us start with this whole issue of States' rights. I yield to no 
one on the issue of States' rights. I have a piece of legislation I 
have introduced every year in this Congress which would have required 
every Member of Congress to cite in each bill they introduce the 
constitutional authority, the provision of the U.S. Constitution that 
gives the Congress the right to act in this area. The gentlewoman would 
suggest that medical marijuana is not an area in which the Federal 
Government has the right to legislate.

                              {time}  2115

  The implication there is that the Federal Government does not have 
the right to legislate in the area of drug policy.
  I would suggest that our Nation's civil rights laws, which I strongly 
support, are based on the issue of interstate commerce and that 
discrimination affects interstate commerce, and therefore it is 
appropriate for the Federal Government to pass laws prohibiting civil 
rights conduct that is offensive, including discrimination.
  By the same token, clearly our Nation's laws against drugs, marijuana 
and all of the others, are based on the same premise, and that is that 
they do affect interstate commerce. Indeed, drug use, illegal drug use 
by American workers, imposes a tremendous burden on our workforce and 
on our productivity.
  But let us go beyond that. The argument I believe she tried to make 
was there is a distinction because these laws that do not have any 
negative effect, they do not do harm. I would suggest that even if 
medicinal marijuana did not harm anyone other than its user, an 
argument I will refute in just a moment, that premise would be wrong.
  But let us look at the case cited earlier in this debate. There is a 
doctor in California who has taken advantage of that State's medical 
marijuana law to write 7,500 prescriptions for medical marijuana and 
has conducted in doing that not a single medical exam. The reality is, 
this is a fraud. The medical marijuana prescriptions which that doctor 
and other doctors have written are not written for medicinal reasons. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) gave, I thought, eloquent 
testimony here on this floor just a few moments ago in which he made it 
very clear that there are drugs available to doctors today with the 
exact same medical and medicinal properties as marijuana, that will 
relieve the pain or that will deal with the lack of hunger or appetite, 
that will deal with those issues.
  I want to make another point. It was interesting that in this debate 
one of my colleagues on the other side said, Look, we already recognize 
certain painkilling drugs and we allow them to be legal in our system, 
and he cited a couple of those painkilling drugs. Why do we not allow 
marijuana? The answer is, there is sound evidence behind allowing 
certain drugs and there is no

[[Page H7311]]

sound evidence behind allowing marijuana to be used for the reasons for 
which it is argued.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It will, in 
fact, send an inconsistent signal to our children and do grave damage 
to the children of America.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our Federal system reserves to the States all those powers that are 
not designated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Ten 
States have decided that they want to alleviate the pain and suffering 
of their citizens who may be afflicted with AIDS or cancer or some 
other debilitating, killing disease, and make their last days on this 
Earth more comfortable by allowing them, under prescription from a 
licensed physician in those States, to use marijuana for medical 
purposes.
  The Federal Government has said ``no.'' The Justice Department and 
this administration have said ``no.'' They are not going to allow 
people in those 10 States, fully 20 percent of the States of the 
Nation, to be relieved of the pain and suffering under the laws of 
those States. That makes no sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank everyone who participated in this debate. I think it 
is very important that issues like this be discussed on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. The fact of the matter here, in this 
particular amendment, is simply this: Are we going to continue to allow 
the United States Justice Department to stick its nose into the 
business of 10 sovereign States of this Union who have decided that 
they want to help people who are suffering and dying from debilitating 
disease, AIDS, cancer, and others, who suffer from ailments such as 
glaucoma and a whole host of other ailments that have been found by a 
vast majority of the highly respected medical associations of this 
country, they have found that people suffering in that way can be 
relieved by the prescriptive use of marijuana under the supervision of 
a licensed physician?
  That is what this amendment would do. It does not open up anything 
else.
  Some of the arguments that have been made against this amendment have 
nothing to do with what this amendment seeks to achieve. It is very 
narrow in its form and in its definition. It relates only to States 
that have decided in their own way, either by referendum, which eight 
of them have, or by laws passed by their State legislative bodies, to 
allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes to relieve the pain 
and suffering in the final days of their lives.
  People talk about a gateway drug. Someone dying from cancer is not 
going to use marijuana as a gateway drug. They are using it to try to 
gain back a bit of their appetite so that they can maintain their 
strength and continue to live among their family and offer the aid and 
assistance of themselves to that family during the last days of their 
lives. Are we going to deny people that?
  That is exactly what we are doing by the present law, and that is why 
this amendment is here, and I ask for its passage.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really a cultural issue. That is what this is 
all about. It is about the culture, nothing else. The Hinchey amendment 
would mean that State medical marijuana laws are the supreme law of the 
land. This amendment would prevent Federal officials from enforcing 
Federal law in a manner contrary to State law.
  Under this amendment anyone who manufactures, distributes, or 
possesses marijuana in purported compliance with State law would have 
immunity under Federal law.
  I think it is a big issue and I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) covered it very 
well. Medical marijuana laws send the wrong message to our youth, too 
many of whom do not recognize the dangers of marijuana and continue to 
experiment. It is a cultural issue. It has taken the culture in the 
wrong direction, and I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kolbe) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________