[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5260-H5284]
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, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). Pursuant to House
Resolution 701 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4754.
{time} 1629
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4754) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
bill was open for amendment from page 2, line 6, through line 22.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
joint automated booking system
For expenses necessary for the nationwide deployment of a
Joint Automated Booking System including automated capability
to transmit fingerprint and image data, $20,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2006.
[[Page H5261]]
integrated automated fingerprint identification system
For necessary expenses for the planning, development, and
deployment of an integrated fingerprint identification
system, including automated capability to transmit
fingerprint and image data, $5,054,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2006.
legal activities office automation
For necessary expenses related to the design, development,
engineering, acquisition, and implementation of office
automation systems for the organizations funded under the
headings ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'',
and ``General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', and
the United States Attorneys, the United States Marshals
Service, the Antitrust Division, the United States Trustee
Program, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the
Community Relations Service, the Bureau of Prisons, the
Office of Justice Programs, and the United States Parole
Commission, $50,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006.
narrowband communications
For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications,
including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land
Mobile Radio legacy systems, $100,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the
Attorney General shall transfer to the ``Narrowband
Communications'' account all funds made available to the
Department of Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile
radios: Provided further, That any transfer made under the
preceding proviso shall be subject to section 605 of this
Act.
administrative review and appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration-related activities,
$202,518,000.
detention trustee
For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee,
$938,810,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Trustee shall be responsible for managing the
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System and for
overseeing housing related to such detention: Provided
further, That any unobligated balances available in prior
years from the funds appropriated under the heading ``Federal
Prisoner Detention'' shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation under the heading ``Detention Trustee'' and
shall be available until expended. Provided further, That the
Trustee, working in consultation with the Bureau of Prisons,
shall submit a plan for collecting information related to
evaluating the health and safety of Federal prisoners in non-
Federal institutions no later than 180 days following the
enactment of this Act.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$63,813,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.
United States Parole Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized, $10,650,000.
Legal Activities
salaries and expenses, general legal activities
For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to
be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and
rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of
Columbia, $639,314,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000
for litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds made available in
this Act shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or
justify the use of torture by any official or contract
employee of the United States Government: Provided further,
That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000
shall be available to the United States National Central
Bureau, INTERPOL, for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon a determination by the Attorney
General that emergent circumstances require additional
funding for litigation activities of the Civil Division, the
Attorney General may transfer such amounts to ``Salaries and
Expenses, General Legal Activities'' from available
appropriations for the current fiscal year for the Department
of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such
circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
{time} 1630
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 5, line 22, strike ``expended:'' and insert
``expended, and of which $1,000,000 shall be available for
enforcing subsections (a) and (b) of section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373):''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to
enforce existing Federal law that prohibits localities from refusing to
allow their officers to report aliens who commit crimes to the
immigration authorities. My amendment would provide funding for the
Department of Justice to enforce current law, which is section 642 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of
1996.
Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act of 1996 does not allow localities to prevent their
police officers from reporting immigration information to the Federal
Government. However, some cities have continued to refuse to allow
their officers to provide information to the Federal Government.
Without this information, the Federal immigration authorities cannot
take steps to remove these criminal illegal aliens from American
streets. Under these so-called sanctuary policies in certain cities,
the police cannot report the illegal aliens who commit crimes to the
immigration authorities for deportation.
As a result, taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien prisoners who
are later released back on to the streets rather than being deported.
This sanctuary policy has disastrous consequences for future victims.
Repeat offenses by criminal illegal aliens are preventable crimes.
These offenders should have been removed from the United States as soon
as their first crime was discovered. Their prompt removal prevents
future crimes. We can act to prevent crime by funding enforcement of
section 642 by the Department of Justice.
An unfortunate situation that occurred in New York City, a crime that
could have been prevented by enforcement of section 642, indicates the
urgent need for our action. On December 19, 2002, a 42-year-old mother
of two was seized and brutally assaulted in a shanty near railroad
tracks in Queens. She and her boyfriend were robbed by a group who then
took the woman to the woods, leaving her boyfriend unconscious. During
the 2-hour attack, she was abused and her life was threatened. A police
canine unit rescued her before her attackers could carry out their
deadly threats. In response, the New York Police Department arrested
five aliens, four of whom had illegally entered the country and three
with extensive arrest warrants in New York City.
This crime could have been prevented. Four of the five suspects had
entered the country illegally. Three of these had prior arrests and
convictions, and always they were released. Even so, the INS was never
contacted about these individuals prior to the 2002 attack. New York
City's sanctuary policy prohibited a New York police officer from
contacting information authorities about these attackers when they
committed their previous crimes or were discovered to be in the United
States illegally. As a result, the immigration authorities could not
remove these aliens because they did not know that they were illegally
present in the United States.
Sanctuary policies tie the hands of local law enforcement officers
and keep illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country rather than
deporting these criminals according to U.S. law.
My amendment will ensure enforcement of the Federal law that can
prevent additional heinous crimes by illegal aliens with criminal
records. We must not allow criminal illegal aliens whose presence was
never reported to Federal immigration authorities due to illegal
sanctuary policies to continue to commit brutal crimes.
We must not provide sanctuary to criminals. Please support my
amendment, which funds enforcement of section 642 and reestablishes and
supports current law.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
My concern is on the germaneness of the amendment. The function that
this is involved with has been transferred to Homeland Security, and so
I rise in opposition to it. It would earmark funding for litigation
support contracts, really earmarking just the Department of Litigation
Support Contracts, but I believe all this function has been transferred
also to the Department of Homeland Security out of the Justice
Department.
[[Page H5262]]
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I looked into this argument; and to
transfer this authority to Homeland Security, there is no existing
precedent for enforcement of this law by Homeland Security. It is a
legitimate function of the Department of Justice to enforce Federal
law; and, in fact, this would be bringing an action against local
government. And that is something that there is a precedent for under
the Department of Justice, but no precedent for that under Homeland
Security. So if this were all transferred to Homeland Security, we
would not have action that could be brought by the Department of
Justice in many other cases as well as this.
I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
As I understand this amendment, this brings us into an area that we
have discussed before, and it is this whole issue of local law
enforcement involved in immigration activities.
This is interesting. When we took this up before on different
occasions, we were able through this amendment to unite law enforcement
throughout the Nation because local police departments continue to tell
us that it is in their best interest not to appear to the immigrant
population to be involved in enforcing immigration law. In other words,
what the police departments at a local level want more than anything
else is to be able to speak to residents of that community, be they
citizens, legal residents, or undocumented aliens, needing their
information, needing their support, in dealing with crime in the
community.
There are many things that are wrong with this amendment. But the one
that I single out is that one because what that does is immediately
create a wall between local law enforcement and the immigrant
community, saying if I go to him to tell him I know who stole that car,
if I go to him to tell him I know who robbed the local grocery store, I
am then being faced by a local official who has to by law, in these
cases, if these amendments are approved, has to turn me in on my
immigration status. And that is totally unacceptable.
So if anything else, I would hope that we fully understand that this
does not enjoy the support of local law enforcement and should not be a
burden. It is, in fact, and I cannot believe I am actually going to say
this in one of my conservative moments, it is, in fact, an unfunded
mandate because we are telling them to engage in activities that we are
not paying for.
For that reason, I rise in strong opposition and hope the amendment
is defeated.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will not take the full 5 minutes. I just want to join the leaders
of the communities in expressing strong opposition to this amendment.
This is not an academic issue in New York City. We had a circumstance
after September 11 where FBI agents fanned out into the neighborhoods
doing interviews at corner stores in Arab American communities. And the
FBI was required to notify the INS anytime they found anything
untoward. The word spread within hours, and I think the gentleman from
the Bronx would acknowledge this, spread within hours, do not
cooperate, do not give the information. The FBI in the City of New York
turned to the NYPD and said since they have a trustful relationship
with many of these recent immigrants, can they go conduct these
interviews.
And a lot of the information that was gathered, including some about
threats to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, was gathered that way. So from
a law enforcement perspective, this amendment has no merit. Proof of
that is I can read a list as long as my arm of police departments and
police organizations who are opposed to this type of initiative. As the
gentleman from New York said, they do not want their officers in the
position of breaking down what is often years and years of trust
because of this type of thing. It is demagogically very appealing to
say the minute they find out someone has violated the immigration laws,
let us turn them in. But from a realistic, real life, particularly
antiterror amendment, one could not imagine a worse amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise to strike the requisite number of words because I want to
thank the chairman and the ranking member for the funding that they put
into the MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program,
and I was not able to be here earlier.
The Members of the House talk constantly about how important
manufacturing is to a strong economy, that indeed we cannot have a
strong economy if we do not have a strong manufacturing sector. Mr.
Chairman, we cannot have a strong manufacturing sector if we do not
have strong small manufacturers. The big global manufacturers simply
cannot compete if they do not have U.S. small suppliers who are ISO
9000 certified, who are lean and mean, who are high quality, who are
high productivity. And if you are one of those small manufacturers like
I represent, and so many of the rest that my colleagues represent
throughout the country, that have 25 to 60 employees who are struggling
hard to meet payroll every single month and facing health care costs
increases of 20 percent, who are out there finding customers and orders
and dealing with delivery problems, those people just cannot mobilize
the time, the focus, the expertise to improve productivity and quality
at the pace that our modern economy demands it.
So these Manufacturing Extension Partnership programs are located
throughout all 50 States. There are about 400 locations. In Connecticut
they are called CONNSTEP. They are one third Federal, one third State,
and one third fee based. Our program in Connecticut now is even more
fee based. But nationally they have created 35,000 jobs over the year
2002, increased sales by $953 million, retained sales of almost $2
billion, realized cost savings of almost $700 million; and invested
$940 million in plant equipment, workforce training, extremely
important, and information management systems.
In fact, experts from these centers simply come into a plant, onto
the floor with the owner, and help that owner understand, whether he
needs to rearrange equipment or make other changes. Does he need to buy
new equipment? Is it new manufacturing equipment? Is it new information
technology? Is it new energy efficiency capability? Is it a different
communications system? And, in fact, they analyze what that small plant
can do to do one of two things: improve the quality of the product they
are making, improve the productivity.
Without them, the infrastructure that our global manufacturers depend
on in America would have disappeared a number of years ago. Without
them, lean manufacturing would not have been able to permeate those
small manufacturers who day in and day out are struggling to meet
payroll in a way that none of us here have to take responsibility for.
So they are important to our very existence as a strong economy. They
are important to our global competitiveness. In manufacturing we have
developed this remarkable partnership capability to bring to the
service of the small manufacturing the engineering expertise, the
machinery and equipment expertise, the systems expertise, the ISO 9000
certification expertise, certain expertise in getting European
certifications so the small guy can export.
{time} 1645
All together, this partnership program has acted exactly like the
partnership program we have through our great agricultural extension
programs at our Land Grant colleges to help agricultural producers,
that is, the farm community, have the expertise they need to develop
conservation plans, deal with waste management issues and improve
quality of product and productivity in the agricultural area.
[[Page H5263]]
We have done very well in agriculture, we have done very well in
manufacturing, but we do not know it about ourselves. So this program
is always under fire. That is why I have come to the floor to talk
about it and to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) for standing up for it.
I see my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who knows
a lot about it and represents a manufacturing community in Grand
Rapids, is here to speak also.
This is as important a program, it is as important a partnership, as
any single partnership the Federal Government is a part of, bar none,
because it not only does the things I have described, but it has helped
train workers on more sophisticated machinery, it has helped train
workers in language skills, on systems issues and all kinds of things.
I am very proud that our free Nation has understood there is a
public-private partnership that strengthens the entrepreneurial
manufacturing community and enables us to make good on that promise to
our kids, that they will have an economic opportunity equal or better
than that of my generation.
This, combined with the Department of Commerce's recent in-depth
study on the problems of manufacturing and the issues they are
addressing, are going to assure that we will be competitive and strong
in the global economy, because we will have a strong manufacturing
sector.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her astute
comments on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the role it
plays. I have worked extensively on this issue, because it is under my
jurisdiction as chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology
and Standards of the Committee on Science. We have spent a considerable
amount of time over this past year working on this issue and have
developed a bill which will be on the floor tomorrow which will deal
with this.
Everything that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has observed about
the program is absolutely true, and it has always puzzled me why there
is some opposition to this program.
Just to give an example of the benefits of this type of program, I
think one of the finest programs we have had in the Agriculture
Department for a number of years is the Cooperative Extension Program,
which has been invaluable in getting research out of the laboratory and
into the field. It has always amazed me that we have an amazing
technology transfer rate in the agriculture arena, because of that
program. A laboratory researcher at a university can discover something
new one year and the farmers are actually using it in the field the
next year, a tremendous accomplishment in terms of transferring
technology from the lab to actual operations. We certainly do not do
that well in most other fields. We do not do that well in
manufacturing.
I find it interesting that we, as a Federal Government, spend $441
million per year for the Agriculture Cooperative Extension Program, and
yet we seem to fuss and muss a lot about $100 or $110 million for
essentially the same program for manufacturers. At the same time, there
are only about 1.5 percent of Americans employed in farming, and there
are roughly 14 percent employed in manufacturing. So clearly our
priorities are wrong if we think we are spending too much in assisting
manufacturers.
The MEP program, Manufacturing Extension Program, is designed to help
small- and medium-sized businesses, and particularly provides
technology transfer from the lab to the marketplace. In addition to
that, it also provides business expertise, as the gentlewoman from
Connecticut observed, to assist in exporting, and to assist in getting
permits from other countries to export. The MEP program has been a
very, very valuable program for small- and middle-sized businesses and,
in many cases, has allowed them to increase and become large
businesses. So it is an excellent program.
I certainly want to support what the gentlewoman has said. This is a
good program for us to do, and I hope that tomorrow we will have the
support of a large number of Members as we consider the bill which will
reauthorize the program. I certainly support what the chairman of this
Appropriations subcommittee has done in allocating money for that
program.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today the Committee on House Administration,
which I chair, along with our ranking member the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and our members, held a hearing on electronic
voting system security. A diverse group of technology specialists and
election administrators testified before the committee regarding issues
relating to the reliability of electronic and computer-based voting
systems and discussed what is needed to ensure the integrity of the
latest generation of voting systems.
Though a wide range of opinions were offered throughout the course of
the hearing, everyone agreed that well-written standards and a rigorous
testing and certification process are absolutely necessary for
maintaining the integrity of electronic voting systems under the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, known as HAVA, of which I am proud to have
been a principal author with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
and also the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and others in the
House. That bill is an important bill for voting in the United States,
and again, I am proud that that bill has passed.
In that bill, NIST plays a crucial role in both the standards setting
and testing and certification processes. First of all, HAVA tasks the
director of NIST with chairing the Technical Guidelines Development
Committee, known as TGDC, which HAVA created to assist the Election
Assistance Commission, known as EAC, in crafting standards to ensure
the security and reliability of voting technologies used in our Federal
elections.
NIST is also tasked with evaluating testing laboratories and
providing recommendations to the EAC as to which laboratories should be
accredited for voting systems testing and certification.
Now that jurisdictions across the country are beginning to upgrade
their voting systems, the American people demand and deserve to know
that the latest generation of voting equipment will cast and count
their ballots accurately and will be tamper-proof and free of technical
malfunctions, for the purpose of HAVA was to make it easier to vote and
harder to cheat.
The successful achievement of this objective of the bill will depend
in great part upon the ability of NIST to fulfill its responsibilities
under the Help America Vote Act, which in turn will hinge on whether
NIST receives sufficient funding specifically allocated for its HAVA-
related obligations.
Therefore, I believe it is urgent, and I want to stress urgent, that
we get the needed resources to NIST as quickly as possible. I am
joining today with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), in support of the report language for this bill that urges NIST
to devote funds for these functions.
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has
always supported the idea of NIST. I want to thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his attention to this issue and for his
consideration today. I also have been in contact with the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) to see if the money dedicated to NIST,
via the EAC, can be included in the Transportation-Treasury
appropriations bill.
The vehicle for the funding is not of greatest importance. What is
important is that the funding be absolutely provided. Regardless of the
vehicle, we need to see that NIST will receive the money it needs to
carry out its important statutory obligations.
I would like to note that the White House recently submitted
amendments to its fiscal year 2005 budget that would provide an
additional $10 million for the Election Assistance Commission. Perhaps
funding for NIST to meet its obligations under HAVA could be taken from
this amount. I will be talking again to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Chairman Istook).
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and
express
[[Page H5264]]
appreciation for the diligence of our colleague the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this issue and the bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement. I
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for his leadership on the
Help America Vote Act. Without his leadership and strong support, it
would not have passed. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker
Hastert), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee
on Appropriations and others were critically important in its passage
and funding.
I want to rise with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) in strong
support of report language that was offered by the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) during the June 23 markup of the bill before us
today. I applaud the Committee on Appropriations for including it in
the report. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their leadership and
attention to this very important matter.
That report language reads: ``The committee strongly urges NIST to
give priority consideration to Help America Vote Act outreach to the
election community; expediting work on a new voting standards
accreditation program; and its work with the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee working with the Election Assistance Commission.
NIST is directed to provide in advance of the fiscal 2006 hearings a
report detailing what steps must be taken to bring its activities in
line with the timetable established by the act.''
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) indicated that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) had worked with us. In fact, of course, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) was the principal sponsor in
assuring that NIST was included as an integral part of the Help America
Vote Act.
Obviously, technology is one of the critical issues in the HAVA
proposal, which funds new technology for voting around the country. The
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) correctly said that we ought to
have the best possible advice regarding technology, and NIST was the
agency to provide that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Hoyer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ney was
allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, of which I and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were sponsors, NIST is required to
conduct several important research and technical projects connected to
election reform. NIST is already busy working with the new Election
Assistance Commission to advance HAVA's objectives. However, much more
must be done if NIST is to fulfill its important role.
As we learned in the controversial 2000 election, voting systems in
many parts of the country are antiquated and obsolete. There continues
to be controversy about various technologies. NIST can make a critical
difference.
As the 2004 election fast approaches, there are concerns in some
quarters about the security and reliability of some voting systems.
Properly directed, NIST will make a significant contribution, ensuring
that new voting systems are rigorously tested, easy to use and
maintain, and secure.
I strongly urge NIST to follow the spirit and substance of the report
language and give priority consideration to the Help America Vote Act
in fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Chairman, I would follow up with the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Ney) that I look forward to working with him and the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) as we consider the
Transportation-Treasury bill and the additional appropriations for the
Election Assistance Commission to attempt to get some of the money that
NIST needs for 2005 out of the funds that are authorized for the
Election Assistance Commission.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the
chairman of this subcommittee, and I want to thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking Democrat, for their leadership and
assistance in this effort, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership
and for yielding me time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just to close on this
issue, let me just say that this funding is a critical component. The
entire funding where we get to the $3.9 billion, which we have gotten
some money and have a little more to go, the gentleman from Illinois
(Speaker Hastert) has been assisting on that funding. We worked with
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), as the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned. Originally when this started we went to
the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) at
that time. Everybody along the way has been very good on providing the
money.
We still have some more components to go, but this particular aspect
right now is just so important, to provide this for NIST to be able to
really do its job and to interact with the EAC.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I want
to thank him for his continuing comments and again express, this was
probably the most substantive bipartisan bill that passed in the last
Congress. The Speaker indicated that and others have as well. If we,
however, fail to fund it properly, it will be a promise unfulfilled,
and our democracy will not be as well served as all of us hoped when we
supported the Help America Vote Act.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to
exceed $6,333,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
{time} 1700
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will not take my 5 minutes; I
just want to put a statement in the Record.
I rise in support of this bill for the Subcommittee on Commerce,
State, Justice, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies and to say
congratulations to both the chairman and ranking member for their
efforts. I know there are particular projects, and I would like to put
a special word in for NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to fund the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary.
In crafting this legislation, our appropriators faced the difficult
task of adequately funding many national priorities. On balance, they
did a remarkable job and have produced a bill worthy of our support.
For sure, there are programs that we would all like to see funded at
higher levels. One of particular interest to me and my constituents in
Houston is NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program. This
program exists to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that
have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, or historical
values and are threatened by development or conversion.
In Houston, we are involved in an effort to preserve the Buffalo
Bayou, which is the historic waterway on which the Allen Brothers
founded Houston in 1836.
NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program has allowed us
to partner with the Trust for Public Land to conserve critical tracts
of land along the Buffalo Bayou in order to further our conservation
efforts.
Ultimately, we seek to revitalize the Buffalo Bayou in a manner that
balances the need to conserve the Bayou's wetlands and waterways with
the recreational and business development needed to transform the
Buffalo Bayou into an active and vibrant urban waterfront center.
While the House bill provides only $3 million for the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Protection Program, I am hopeful that our appropriators
will see it fit to raise that funding level during conference.
[[Page H5265]]
An increased funding level would allow the federal government to
continue its investment in areas like the Buffalo Bayou that have been
recognized by this Congress and conservation groups alike as nationally
and historically significant areas worthy of preservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $135,463,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, not to exceed $101,000,000 of offsetting collections
derived from fees collected for premerger notification
filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of
collection, shall be retained and used for necessary expenses
in this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2005, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $34,463,000.
salaries and expenses, united states attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,535,000,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000
shall be available until September 30, 2006, for: (1)
training personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors
and their property; (3) paying the net costs of selling
property; and (4) tracking debts owed to the United States
Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated,
not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for
automated litigation support contracts shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
Offices of the United States Attorneys, not to exceed 10,238
positions and 10,361 full-time equivalent workyears shall be
supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the
United States Attorneys.
united states trustee system fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized, $172,850,000, to remain available
until expended and to be derived from the United States
Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be
available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds
due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $172,850,000 of offsetting
collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation and
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
sum herein appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2005, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005
appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.
salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,220,000.
salaries and expenses, united states marshals service
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service, $752,070,000; of which $17,472,000 shall be
available for 106 supervisory deputy marshal positions for
courthouse security; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses;
and of which $4,000,000 for information technology systems
shall remain available until expended; of which not less than
$8,221,000 shall be available for the costs of courthouse
security equipment, including furnishings, relocations, and
telephone systems and cabling, and shall remain available
until September 30, 2006: Provided, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
United States Marshals Service, not to exceed 4,578 positions
and 4,404 full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported
from the funds appropriated in this Act for the United States
Marshals Service.
construction
For construction of United States Marshals Service
prisoner-holding space in United States courthouses and
Federal buildings, $1,371,000, to remain available until
expended.
fees and expenses of witnesses
For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of
contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert
witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances,
$177,585,000, to remain available until expended; of which
not to exceed $8,000,000 may be made available for
construction of buildings for protected witness safesites; of
which not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made available for the
purchase and maintenance of armored vehicles for
transportation of protected witnesses; and of which not to
exceed $7,000,000 may be made available for the purchase,
installation, maintenance and upgrade of secure
telecommunications equipment and a secure automated
information network to store and retrieve the identities and
locations of protected witnesses.
salaries and expenses, community relations service
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
$9,833,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon a determination by the Attorney
General that emergent circumstances require additional
funding for conflict resolution and violence prevention
activities of the Community Relations Service, the Attorney
General may transfer such amounts to the Community Relations
Service, from available appropriations for the current fiscal
year for the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to
respond to such circumstances: Provided further, That any
transfer pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as
a reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not
be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
assets forfeiture fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and
(G), $21,759,000, to be derived from the Department of
Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
payment to radiation exposure compensation trust fund
In addition to amounts appropriated by subsection 3(e) of
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S. Code 2210
note), $72,000,000 for payment to the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.
Interagency Law Enforcement
interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
For necessary expenses for the identification,
investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with
the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money
laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to
include inter-governmental agreements with State and local
law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $561,033,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, in 1990, in response to more than 100,000 dolphins
killed each year by the tuna fishermen, Congress passed legislation
that my colleague, Barbara Boxer, and I authored, creating the popular
``dolphin safe'' label on cans of tuna. For over a decade, this label
gave consumers the option to purchase tuna with the confidence that the
dolphins were not being chased, netted, and killed along with the tuna.
The dolphin-safe label has been a huge success. Since passage of the
label, dolphin mortality decreased by 98 percent, to fewer than 2,000
kills each year.
But despite the success of this program, the Bush Commerce Department
issued a finding in 2002 that allowed dolphin-safe labels to be placed
on tuna harvested through the chase and encirclement method, a manner
that kills dolphins.
With this shift in policy, the Commerce Department ignored its own
scientific information showing the high dolphin mortalities caused by
this harvest technique. Indeed, this change completely undermined the
integrity of the dolphin-safe label.
Now, thanks to evidence uncovered by a lawsuit filed against the
change, we learn that while the Bush administration was weakening the
dolphin-safe label, it knew, it knew that observers from the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission on Mexican tuna-fishing vessels were
being bribed to misreport tuna as dolphin-safe.
An internal NOAA e-mail states that it ``was common knowledge
throughout the fleet that the observers were regularly paid off to
misreport what happened during the cruise.''
Yet the Commerce Department argues that these allegations are
irrelevant to its decision to relax restrictions on foreign-caught
tuna. And the Commerce Department has not provided an explanation for
its modification of the scientific data, nor has Commerce taken the
steps that we are aware of to address the bribery issues.
Meanwhile, the U.S. pays much more for its fair share to the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission, the body allegedly being bribed to
look the other way during dolphin kills.
The appropriations bill that we are considering today provides nearly
a 40 percent increase for the Tropical Tuna Commission. Yet, the
Commerce Department is apparently doing nothing
[[Page H5266]]
to ensure that the Tropical Tuna Commission is doing its job.
Without an investigation into these allegations of bribery, and until
the Commerce Department decides what science will guide its decisions,
we should not be subsidizing foreign fishing practices that damage the
dolphin-safe label.
The dolphin-safe label was created at the urging of hundreds of
thousands of students from across this country; hundreds of thousands
of schoolchildren participated in the process and saw the suggested
improvements to protect dolphins enacted into law.
What message is this administration sending to those very same
children and to the committed scientists at NOAA by cynically
undermining the dolphin-safe label and failing to investigate the
allegations of bribery by those who are entrusted to protect the
dolphins during the harvest of the tuna, and to make sure that the
consumers are aware that, in fact, this is dolphin-free tuna.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that we have failed to address
these issues while, at the same time, dramatically increasing the
funding for the Tropical Tuna Commission.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on a
proposal by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to establish a
national contact center. Hopefully, we can address the concerns of
those Members who have expressed misgivings about this proposal.
Recently, we observed the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the years since the enactment of that
landmark legislation, the EEOC has had a pivotal role in fighting
discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that all Americans are
treated fairly. However, despite the important role of the EEOC, it has
experienced the same budget constraints as most other agencies in this
bill.
The EEOC sought the assistance of the National Academy of Public
Administration in finding ways to streamline its organizational
structure and use its personnel to continue meeting its missions in the
21st century.
Among the NAPA recommendations was a proposal to create a National
Contact Center using contract employees. The EEOC has proposed to enter
into a contract to establish a call center as a 2-year pilot project at
an estimated cost of $2 million. Of this amount, $1 million is
available through a reprogramming of current-year funding. This bill
will provide $1 million in fiscal year 2005.
NAPA made a number of additional streamlining proposals, including
possible office closures, which might result in personnel reductions.
Although the administration requested funding for a reposition of EEOC
resources, the bill does not provide any of the requested increased
funding for repositioning because a spending plan has not been
submitted to the committee.
Many EEOC employees across the country have heard of these proposals
and are worried about losing their jobs as a result of office closures
or outsourcing of the call center.
The commission's reorganization proposals, including specifically the
National Contact Center, were discussed in detail at a subcommittee
hearing earlier this year. At that time, both the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I expressed concerns about the possible
cause of this proposal. Accordingly, we advised the Chair, Cari
Dominguez, that the subcommittee expected her to come back to us prior
to entry into a contract to establish the call center. Ms. Dominguez
made a commitment to us that she would do so. Both the Chair and her
staff have continued to reiterate that commitment.
Similarly, Ms. Dominguez has repeatedly reassured the subcommittee
that EEOC is not planning to close any of its existing offices or cut
jobs or current employees. This bill provides full funding for the
commission's current base staffing level.
So I ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is it his understanding
that expenditure of any funding in 2005 for the proposed National
Contact Center is contingent on the EEOC notifying this subcommittee,
consistent with the long-standing requirement of section 605, prior to
taking any formal action to obligate the funding?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
raising this issue, because it is a concern for Members on my side of
the aisle and for many others, and also for constituents of mine. I
want to assure the Members and the gentleman that the subcommittee is
aware of these issues and will do everything we can to protect the
rights of Federal employees. Ms. Dominguez has promised us, and I went
back and I looked in the hearing record the other day, that the
commission has no intention of closing offices or cutting jobs of
current employees and that she will come to the subcommittee before
spending any money on the call center or any other reorganization
proposal.
So I completely agree.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman,
as always, for his support.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with
the chairman. I would like to draw the attention of the chairman of the
subcommittee to the proposed reductions in the appropriations for NOAA
of nearly $400 million.
The appropriation subcommittee over the years, including this one,
has been very supportive of the issues dealing with the oceans and
those issues that surround our oceans, our exploration, and our coastal
problems. I also understand the delicate balance and appreciate the
difficulty faced by the subcommittee in allocating limited funds across
the board when there are so many pressures. Our oceans and coasts
support over 2.8 million jobs, generate over $54 billion in goods and
services, and are the most popular destinations for recreation and
tourism in the United States.
But I can see next year some major initiatives dealing with the
oceans in this particular Congress as a result of the Ocean Commission
Report. Some of the more pressing needs include an integrated ocean
observing system, ocean science and exploration. We currently know more
about the Moon than we know about our oceans. It is important for us to
adopt the principles of ecosystem management for our oceans and coasts
and focus on control of marine and coastal aquatic invasive species.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) as we move the process along, knowing the
difficulties of a limited budget, so that we can continue to fund
adequately the science and the kinds of science that NOAA needs.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In conference last year, the subcommittee worked with the Senate to
make NOAA appropriations a priority, with a 15.6 percent increase over
fiscal year 2003 levels. The proposed fiscal year 2005 level, I
believe, returns NOAA funding to historic levels and allows the
subcommittee to restore necessary funding to certain Department of
Justice programs, FBI, and also the MEP program that we did for
Commerce that were not adequately addressed; also the COPS program,
local law enforcement programs in the President's request.
I understand the significance of the coming year, and I saw the ocean
reports that came out. I look forward to working with the gentleman who
is really a leader on these issues to ensure that every effort is made
to maximize funding support for these purposes in this and coming
fiscal years.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
chairman. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia
and his fine staff.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States; including purchase for
police-type use of not to exceed 2,988 passenger
[[Page H5267]]
motor vehicles, of which 2,619 will be for replacement only;
and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C,
$5,205,028,000; of which not to exceed $150,000,000 shall
remain available until expended; of which $916,000,000 shall
be for counterterrorism investigations, foreign
counterintelligence, and other activities related to our
national security; of which $56,349,000 shall be for the
operations, equipment, and facilities of the Foreign
Terrorist Tracking Task Force; and of which not to exceed
$20,000,000 is authorized to be made available for making
advances for expenses arising out of contractual or
reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to
violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, gang-related
crime, cybercrime, and drug investigations: Provided, That
not to exceed $200,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further,
That, in addition to reimbursable full-time equivalent
workyears available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
not to exceed 30,078 positions and 29,102 full-time
equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds
appropriated in this Act for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Construction
For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings
and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law
(including equipment for such buildings); conversion and
extension of Federally-owned buildings; and preliminary
planning and design of projects; $10,242,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $9,000,000 shall be
available to lease a records management facility, including
equipment and relocation expenses, in Frederick County,
Virginia.
Drug Enforcement Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 530C; expenses for conducting drug education and
training programs, including travel and related expenses for
participants in such programs and the distribution of items
of token value that promote the goals of such programs; and
purchase of not to exceed 1,461 passenger motor vehicles, of
which 1,346 will be for replacement only, for police-type
use, $1,661,503,000; of which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall
remain available until expended; and of which not to exceed
$100,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
Drug Enforcement Administration, not to exceed 8,440
positions and 8,289 full-time equivalent workyears shall be
supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the
Drug Enforcement Administration: Provided further, That not
to exceed $8,100,000 from prior year unobligated balances
shall be available for the design, construction and ownership
of a clandestine laboratory training facility and shall
remain available until expended.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, including the purchase of not to
exceed 822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall
be for replacement only; not to exceed $18,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; for training of State
and local law enforcement agencies with or without
reimbursement, including training in connection with the
training and acquisition of canines for explosives and fire
accelerants detection; and for provision of laboratory
assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, with
or without reimbursement, $870,357,000, of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of
attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of
which $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be
available for salaries or administrative expenses in
connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the
Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof,
of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by
Federal firearms licensees: Provided further, That no funds
appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative
expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of
the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to
27 CFR 178.118 or to change the definition of ``Curios or
relics'' in 27 CFR 178.11 or remove any item from ATF
Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated herein
shall be available to investigate or act upon applications
for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C.
925(c): Provided further, That such funds shall be available
to investigate and act upon applications filed by
corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities
under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code:
Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or
activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to other agencies or Departments in fiscal year
2005: Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this
or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used
to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace
System database maintained by the National Trace Center of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or
any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to
section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required
to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such
section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in
connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal
investigation or prosecution and then only such information
as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law
enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use
in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or
proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, or a review of such an action or
proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such
title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process
and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery in
any civil action in a State or Federal court or in any
administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced
by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of
such an action or proceeding; except that this proviso shall
not be construed to prevent the disclosure of statistical
information concerning total production, importation, and
exportation by each licensed importer (as defined in section
921(a)(9) of such title) and licensed manufacturer (as
defined in section 921(a)(10) of such title): Provided
further, That no funds made available by this or any other
Act shall be expended to promulgate or implement any rule
requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under
section 923 of title 18, United States Code: Provided
further, That no funds under this Act may be used to
electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification code:
Provided further, That no funds authorized or made available
under this or any other Act may be used to deny any
application for a license under section 923 of title 18,
United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a
lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is
otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible
to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction
for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
Federal Prison System
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration, operation,
and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional
institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 780, of which
649 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and
passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical
assistance and advice on corrections related issues to
foreign governments, $4,567,232,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and
Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for
direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief
for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System, where necessary, may enter into contracts with a
fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
the Federal Prison System, furnish health services to
individuals committed to the custody of the Federal Prison
System: Provided further, That not to exceed $6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2006: Provided further, That,
of the amounts provided for Contract Confinement, not to
exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available until expended to
make payments in advance for grants, contracts and
reimbursable agreements, and other expenses authorized by
section 501(c) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of
1980, for the care and security in the United States of Cuban
and Haitian entrants: Provided further, That the Director of
the Federal Prison System may accept donated property and
services relating to the operation of the prison card program
from a not-for-profit entity which has operated such program
in the past notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit
entity furnishes services under contracts to the Federal
Prison System relating to the operation of pre-release
services, halfway houses or other custodial facilities.
Buildings and Facilities
For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and
remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and
correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident
thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing,
remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities
at existing penal and correctional institutions, including
all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force
account, $189,000,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to
construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That
labor of United States prisoners may be used for work
performed under this appropriation: Provided further, That
not to exceed 10 percent of the funds appropriated to
``Buildings and Facilities'' in this or any other Act may be
transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison
System, upon notification by
[[Page H5268]]
the Attorney General to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate in compliance
with provisions set forth in section 605 of this Act.
Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated
The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase
(not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries,
Incorporated
Not to exceed $3,429,000 of the funds of the corporation
shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an
accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which such accounting system
requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities
acquired or produced, including selling and shipping
expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition,
construction, operation, maintenance, improvement,
protection, or disposition of facilities and other property
belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.
Office of Justice Programs
Justice Assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Missing Children's
Assistance Act, including salaries and expenses in connection
therewith, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law
108-21), and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, $217,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994
Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); and
other programs; $1,255,037,000 (including amounts for
administrative costs, which shall be transferred to and
merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' account): Provided,
That funding provided under this heading shall remain
available until expended, as follows--
(1) $634,000,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant program pursuant to the amendments made by
section 201 of H.R. 3036 of the 108th Congress, as passed by
the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004 (except that
the special rules for Puerto Rico established pursuant to
such amendments shall not apply for purposes of this Act), of
which--
(A) $80,000,000 shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs in public
housing facilities and other areas in cooperation with State
and local law enforcement, as authorized by section 401 of
Public Law 104-294 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note);
(B) $15,000,000 shall be available for the National
Institute of Justice in assisting units of local government
to identify, select, develop, modernize, and purchase new
technologies for use by law enforcement, of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for use by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics to collect data necessary for carrying out this
program; and
(C) $5,000,000 for USA Freedom Corps activities;
(2) $325,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act;
(3) $15,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes, of which--
(A) $2,000,000 shall be available for grants under section
20109(a)(2) of subtitle A of title II of the 1994 Act;
(B) $8,000,000 shall be available for the Tribal Courts
Initiative; and
(C) $5,000,000 shall be available for demonstration
projects on alcohol and crime in Indian Country;
(4) $110,000,000 for discretionary grants authorized by
subpart 2 of part E, of title I of the 1968 Act,
notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 of said Act;
(5) $10,000,000 for victim services programs for victims of
trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law
106-386;
(6) $883,000 for the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient
Alert Program, as authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994
Act;
(7) $50,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by Part EE
of the 1968 Act;
(8) $1,979,000 for public awareness programs addressing
marketing scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by
section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act;
(9) $10,000,000 for a prescription drug monitoring program;
(10) $52,175,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution
programs as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-79), of which $2,175,000 shall be
transferred to the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission
for authorized activities;
(11) $35,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse
treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by part S of the
1968 Act;
(12) $10,000,000 for a program to improve State and local
law enforcement intelligence capabilities including training
to ensure that constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil
rights, and privacy interests are protected throughout the
intelligence process; and
(13) $1,000,000 for a State and local law enforcement hate
crimes training and technical assistance program:
Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of the
funds made available under this title to increase the number
of law enforcement officers, the unit of local government
will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement
officers who perform nonadministrative public safety service.
Weed and Seed Program Fund
For necessary expenses to implement ``Weed and Seed''
program activities, $51,169,000, to remain available until
expended, for inter-governmental agreements, including
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, with State and
local law enforcement agencies, non-profit organizations, and
agencies of local government engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of violent and gang-related crimes and drug
offenses in ``Weed and Seed'' designated communities, and for
either reimbursements or transfers to appropriation accounts
of the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies which
shall be specified by the Attorney General to execute the
``Weed and Seed'' program strategy: Provided, That funds
designated by Congress through language for other Department
of Justice appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed''
program activities shall be managed and executed by the
Attorney General through the Executive Office for Weed and
Seed: Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct
the use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in
support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after
the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 26, line 16 be considered
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (including
administrative costs), $686,702,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds that become available as
a result of deobligations from prior year balances may not be
obligated except in accordance with section 605 of this Act:
Provided further, That section 1703(b) and (c) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act'')
shall not apply to non-hiring grants made pursuant to part Q
of title I thereof (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.). Of the amounts
provided--
(1) $113,000,000 is for law enforcement enhancement grants
pursuant to the amendments made by section 253 of H.R. 3036
of the 108th Congress, as passed by the House of
Representatives on March 30, 2004;
(2) $25,000,000 is for the matching grant program for law
enforcement armor vests as authorized by section 2501 of part
Y of the 1968 Act: Provided, That not to exceed 2 percent of
such funds shall be available to the Office of Justice
Programs for testing of and research relating to law
enforcement armor vests;
(3) $60,000,000 is for policing initiatives to combat
methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance
policing initiatives in ``drug hot spots'';
(4) $20,000,000 is for Police Corps education and training:
Provided, That the out-year program costs of new recruits
shall be fully funded from funds currently available;
(5) $130,000,000 is for a law enforcement technology
program;
(6) $50,000,000 is for grants to upgrade criminal records,
as authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601);
(7) $175,788,000 is for a DNA analysis and backlog
reduction program;
(8) $40,000,000 is for the Southwest Border Prosecutor
Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or
municipal governments only for costs associated with the
prosecution of criminal cases declined by local United States
Attorneys offices;
(9) $15,000,000 is for an offender re-entry program, as
authorized by Public Law 107-273;
(10) $30,000,000 is for Project Safe Neighborhoods to
reduce gun violence, and gang and drug-related crime; and
(11) not to exceed $27,914,000 is for program management
and administration.
[[Page H5269]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 26, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $106,850,000)''.
Page 27, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $106,850,000)''.
Page 47, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $106,850,000)''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent, except that the chairman and the ranking minority member may
each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the
gentleman will be offering a secondary amendment to the amendment? I
did not understand.
Mr. WOLF. No, we are not.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to offer my thanks and gratitude to the
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee who, with great grace
and dignity, often have to find ways to put 10 pounds' worth of things
into a 5-pound bag.
This amendment is one that simply argues that in one case, the COPS
program, we are allowing the program to effectively die in this bill;
and we must not have that.
{time} 1715
First, some of the facts. The COPS program has been an enormous
success. From coast to coast, big towns, small cities, police
departments as few as five members and as many as the New York City
Police Department of 40,000 have benefited enormously from the COPS
program.
Over the course of time, the program has not only shrunk but morphed
and become more efficient. Many of my colleagues, including in the city
of New York, have suggested, well, we need less money for hiring, but
we do need more money for things like radios and equipment and cars. So
the program has morphed into a block grant. The problem is, it has also
hemorrhaged to an enormous degree.
In 1997, there was $1.3 billion allocated by this Congress just for
hiring. In last year's bill, we were down to $219 million. What we see
here is how this reorganization happened. We have now block granted the
entire program into the COPS Enhancement Grant Program, something that,
by the way, I support; it gives greater flexibility to police
departments. But the bottom line is, we have reduced this to $113
million.
Again, to reiterate, we have taken a program, an enormously
successful program that at its high-water mark reached $1.3 billion,
not decades ago but in 1997; we are now proposing to cut that to $113
million.
It is so bad, there is so much demand, there are 2,000 applications
for hiring grants totaling $511 million last year. So far, they are
only able to provide funding for $385 million of them. That is only 15
percent of the eligible States and localities that have been able to
get grant funding, because this program has hemorrhaged so far.
Everyone agrees that it works. John Ashcroft praised the program. The
University of Nebraska did a study to show the COPS program in a 5-year
period resulted in a reduction of 756,000 violent crimes.
And just a word, a brief word, about the offset. We propose to take
the funds, and here I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramsted), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Platts), to take the money from the largest step-up that is in the
bill, which is the Census Bureau.
I have no beef with the Census Bureau. They do a difficult job. They
do it every 10 years, and there is a need to ramp it up, but the
ramping up that is going on is coming at the cost of the COPS program.
Fiscal year 2005, I believe we are going to have other opportunities to
ramp up the Census Bureau.
In fact, at this point in the last census, the software for the
census had not even been purchased yet. That is how early we are in the
process, but I mean no disregard to that bureau. They do an excellent
job. Unfortunately, I believe the COPS program deserves greater
attention.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reduction in the amendment would debilitate the
2010 census, and the census department said it will be the worst census
ever in the history of our Nation. Once the cuts are made, there will
be no opportunity to restart the program. They said the impact of the
cuts, human costs in the loss of more than 1,000 Federal jobs at the
U.S. Census Bureau. There is no catching up. The cut wastes the $500
million already spent and adds another $1 billion to the cost for the
year 2010 for the census. It would cut the Census Bureau by $106
million, resulting in, as I said, the loss of thousands of jobs.
The bill is already $55 million below the request of the
administration. The census is a constitutional responsibility,
collected every 10 years to apportion the seats of the House of
Representatives. The census is one of America's oldest and most
enduring traditions. The first census was collected in 1790. The
results were delivered to George Washington during his first term.
The United States is a rapidly changing and growing country. The
population has grown by 10 million people since 2000, 10 million since
2000. By 2010, there will be more than 300 million Americans living in
America, so we need to keep up and monitor and know about that
population.
This population will need more homes, stores, hospitals, roads, new
schools, and the information is needed to make good decisions. Most of
the data used by State and local governments and the Federal Government
have come from the Census Bureau.
Further, the Census Bureau collects mostly all of the Nation's
economic data. Gross domestic product is delivered in part by the data
of the Census Bureau.
In spite of the unprecedented success of 2000, the General Accounting
Office, an arm of the Congress, concluded that Census 2000 was
conducted at a high cost and great risk and recommended extensive and
early planning for the testing. The funding provided in this bill for
the Census Bureau is already scaled back from what the Census Bureau
requested to fully fund the planning and testing for the 2010 census
and the American Community Survey.
A current Congresswoman informed me earlier today, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who was here today expressing concern
that we were even a little bit lower than what the Census Bureau
thought was appropriate.
Should there be any additional cuts to the Bureau, there will be both
a long- and short-form census that will cost the government upwards of
$15 billion.
The budget requests for the Bureau of the Census has already been
reduced by $55 million. Further reduction would be irresponsible, as it
would endanger our ability to carry out this critical constitutional
responsibility.
Regarding the proposed increase to COPS, this bill already
significantly improves the President's proposals for State and local
law enforcement accounts by providing $886 million above the request.
This includes providing an increase of $251 million above the request
for programs funded in COPS heading, such as $130 million above the
request for law enforcement technologies, $40 million above the request
for Meth Hot Spots.
Other important State and local law enforcement programs funded above
the request include the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
programs, funded at $125 million above the request, SCAAP funding at
$325 million
[[Page H5270]]
above the request. In fact, that was zeroed out. Juvenile Justice
programs are funded at $105 million above the request.
A further increase above the request is not a high priority,
particularly if one were taking it from the Census Bureau, which would
pretty much decimate that.
So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Weiner amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, we in this House authorized $1
billion for the COPS program. It is authorized this year at $113
million, and as far as the Census Bureau, I agree they do very
important work. In 2000, they acknowledge they made mistakes in the
undercount and refused to adjust, so I am not even convinced, if they
had the money, they would do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Keller), the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Weiner amendment
to restore funding for the COPS program to last year's level.
Here is the bottom line. At a time when our homeland security threat
levels are up, does it make sense that our funding for COPS should go
down? Of course not. Yet this bill cuts the COPS grant programs by
nearly half. Common sense suggests that cities all across America would
be expanding, not decreasing, their police forces in the face of
growing homeland security demands.
Now, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has consistently said that
homeland security starts in our hometowns. I can tell you firsthand
that when it comes to making our hometowns safer, there is no Federal
program more popular with the sheriffs and police chiefs in Orlando,
Florida, than the COPS program.
The COPS program has helped local communities in central Florida and
all across the Nation by hiring an additional 118,000 additional police
officers. A study by the University of Nebraska found that the COPS
program is directly linked to the dramatic drop in crime since 1995.
Literally every single congressional district has received funding and
has benefited in some way from the COPS program.
The COPS program is popular because it works and because it allows
local law enforcement agencies to apply directly to the Department of
Justice for the money by filling out a simple one-page grant form.
Now, I have listened to the opponents of the Weiner amendment. They
are all reasonable, well-intentioned people. And this is essentially
what they have to say: They say the bill is fine the way it is because
the $3 billion it provides for State and local law enforcement is over
the President's budget request, and that the offset of $106 million
from the Census Bureau programs is too much of a cut from the Census
budget.
On the surface, that argument sounds pretty good, but it is a bit
misleading in three areas: The amount of the funding, the type of the
funding, and the supposed cuts from the Census Bureau. In the interest
of straight talk, I will squarely address each of these three issues.
First, I will address the amount of funding. The total amount
appropriated in this bill for local and State law enforcement
represents a cut of $103 million from last year's level. The threat
levels are up, yet the law enforcement funding level goes down? No,
sir, that dog will not hunt.
Second, I will address the type of funding. While the COPS hiring
grants have been cut, other types of funding to State and local police
agencies are inadequate replacements because these other types of
funding do not go directly to the law enforcement agencies, but rather
are sent to the States where much of the money is eaten up in
administrative costs; and there is a long delay in getting the money
sent to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, even when the local law
enforcement agencies finally do get the money, it is usually not used
to hire new police officers because they are based on a 1-year grant.
In stark contrast, money out of the COPS program goes directly to the
local law enforcement agencies, using a one-page form, and can be used
right then to hire new police officers for 3 years without bureaucratic
delay, red tape and any unnecessary expense.
The third and final flaw deals with the supposed cuts from the Census
Bureau. Here is the deal with that: The Census Bureau programs received
an increase in funding levels by 32.4 percent this year. By cutting
this dramatic increase down to the more reasonable amount of an 8
percent increase, it will allow us to still increase the Census budget
and yet restore the COPS funding levels to last year's appropriated
level.
Do our COPS, who are on the front lines of homeland security, not
need the money more than the bureaucrats at the Census Bureau?
I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS program and vote
``yes'' on the Weiner amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First of all, let me go on the record, as I have before and will
today and will tomorrow, and say that given an opportunity to have more
dollars available to us, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I
would have done more to provide for the COPS program. I know that. That
is not a statement on my part; that is an understanding of his
philosophy and what he believes in.
However, in spite of that problem, in spite of the fact that we do
not have the dollars in this bill that we want to, because everyone
could get up here and tell us what section of the bill should be
increased and just about every section, except for a couple that I will
mention in a second, could be increased.
In spite of that, it is interesting to know that local law
enforcement is $885 million above the President's request in this bill.
So there has been a serious effort to deal with this issue.
But here is my problem. My problem is that my colleague from New York
(Mr. Weiner), whom I respect and admire, tells us that we can take the
money from the census and he, in the process, will devastate not only
the Census Bureau but the ability to conduct a census.
If I was to carry this to an extreme, which I never would do, this
may be unconstitutional because if there is an issue that is in the
Constitution, it is to conduct a census every 10 years. So we do not
make those decisions around here.
The Census Bureau, those of us who understand the work, they do fully
understand that this cut, which incidentally and we should know this,
my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), my
understanding is will come up with yet a second amendment which cuts
more money from the census, so when it is all over today, he will have
cut the census by over $225 million.
Well, first of all, 1,000 people would have to be laid off. No one
has made a decision in this Congress that those 1,000 people are no
longer needed. No one in any of the two Houses has decided that those
folks have to go. Yet, this amendment would immediately and arbitrarily
decide that those folks have to go.
In addition, we are gearing up for the 2010 census. We are already in
2005, as we speak here today. That means that half the gearing up has
been done. One could argue that instead of saving money, this would
waste money because all the money that has been spent up to now will be
for naught, because obviously the census is not going to be able to
function or be conducted the way it should for the next 5 years.
There is a point, however, that is of great interest to me, and that
is the census count in the inner cities and especially the census count
in the minority communities.
{time} 1730
For Hispanics and African Americans and other minorities in this
country, there is at times nothing more important than a proper count;
and I have been in the past a critic of undercounts, and I continue
with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) to work with the Census Bureau to get a
better count. This would not discuss the issue of a better count. This
would discuss the issue of no count at all.
[[Page H5271]]
When we speak in the minority community, in the poor community of
what we need to do to grow to become part of the American society, we
always cite census figures. We say we have grown by this much, and yet
our educational level has fallen back by this much. We say we have
grown by this much, and yet our per capita income has gone down.
Whatever the issue may be, we run to the Census Bureau to get the
numbers to make our argument to build our case that we need help. I
would carry this to a point where I say to destroy the Census Bureau,
to destroy the next census is a frontal attack on the aspirations of
people in my community who need an accurate count and hopefully a
better count to make the arguments that we can make.
Now, a lot of what is happening here today, when we say COPS, the
program stands for different things, but the short name is COPS, the
people right away think of a police officer. Well, my staff just spoke
to the City of New York, which always comes up in these discussions.
The city folks tell us that because crime is down and the matching
funds for any new hires are not in place or not available in New York
City's current economy they are not hiring any new cops. So any dollars
that supposedly would go to New York would not be available to them at
this point. They could not use them.
On the other hand, they say that they look to the census, they look
to the next count, they look to the American survey as the one chance
that they have to really move ahead and be able to get the dollars
necessary for the city in the future, because let us remember, and I
will conclude with this, that the census also figures in what different
localities get in Federal help based on the population they have.
So for those reasons, and a million more that maybe I will get a
chance to elaborate on, I wholeheartedly oppose this amendment and ask
for its defeat.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to address a couple of the points that have come up.
First of all, the chairman as addressed many times the level to which
we exceed the President's request for COPS. Yes, the President proposed
zero for COPS. He proposed zeroing out the program. This is a
bipartisan amendment because we think that is bad idea.
The second point that is made is it is going to cost personnel at the
Census Bureau. Well, I would just remind my colleagues we do not touch
the salaries and expenses line of this budget. We only refer to the
part that is periodic censuses and programs, but I can tell my
colleagues what eliminating the COPS program has done. It has meant
that less cops are on the beat. We have fired cops in the real world
because the COPS program is hemorrhaged.
Finally, if I can make reference to the final point of the
distinguished ranking member about how the City of New York does not
hire cops with its funding anymore. That is exactly right. That is why
the program is now in a block grant formula that allows police
departments to buy radios, something the city has done; paid overtime,
something the city has done; and provided overtime. These are ways that
the program has become more responsive in response to some of the
objections that our colleagues have raised about the COPS program. In
boom hiring times, it hires. Now, we allow it to backfill for overtime
and other types of programs.
The City of New York, as we speak, has an application in for the Safe
Schools Program, which is part of the COPS program. Well, they are
going to get zero with the budget that is before us now. They will get
funded with some certitude if the Weiner amendment passes.
I would make one final point to my friends who are supportive of the
Census Bureau, particularly my friends, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). If
someone comes to this floor right now and says the improved funding
will lead to a census undercount adjustment in the year 2010, I will
withdraw my amendment; but that is not going to happen. We provided
them all kinds of funding, and let me tell my colleagues what happened.
In 2000, the Census Bureau, not courts, not Congress, decided we are
not going to do an undercount adjustment. What did it cost? The county
of the Bronx, $262 million because of that undercount; the county of
New York, $212 million as a result of that undercount; and here we are
fighting and scratching to defend their funding. Well, God bless them,
but they have already showed that money is not their problem. When we
give them more money, they acknowledge an undercount and they still do
not fix it.
So I have got to tell to my distinguished colleagues from my hometown
of New York, at least we know the COPS funding winds up getting to New
York. We cannot say that about census funding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am ready to yield to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census; but the account that the gentleman cut with the decennial
census does have personnel in it. So he does cut 1,000 jobs, boom, they
are gone; and so whether the gentleman is not Xing the counts, he does
cut personnel with the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam), the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over
the census.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the time.
I rise to oppose this amendment, the Weiner amendment. As chairman of
the subcommittee that has oversight over the Census Bureau, I must
strongly oppose efforts to take the money needed for the important work
that the Census Bureau continues to do for our Nation. I want to offer
my support to the full mark of $774 million that was voted out of the
Committee on Appropriations.
It is ironic that a Member from an area that was affected by an
undercount, that is a critic of the effectiveness of the Census Bureau,
would respond by gutting it, by taking boots out of the streets that
have the effect of making sure that that undercount does not occur, by
finding all of those additional people, by making sure that there is a
fair and accurate count. He guts the budget that would correct those
types of things.
The Census Bureau is the preeminent provider for the data that keeps
our Nation running. We have an economy that is information-based.
Without the information to make good decisions our economy and our
Nation suffers.
I support the efforts of the Census Bureau to plan an accurate and
fair census for 2010, and the planning for that is ongoing. It is not
something that we ramp up the year before. The modernization and early
planning for census 2010 is money well spent, particularly full funding
for the American Community Survey.
We cannot be shortsighted when it comes to the census. The American
Community Survey, for example, would give a city like New York that has
seen a great deal of change since the last census as a result of
horrible events beyond our control in 2001, it would give New York
accurate data on an annual basis rather than having to wait an entire
decade to reflect the change that occurred there on September 11. The
American Community Survey, at its heart, is designed to give areas like
New York City, like Washington, D.C., like small Midwestern towns that
disappear overnight with the fury of a tornado accurate data on an
annualized basis rather than having to wait 10 ears to have good,
solid, sound information.
This amendment, the Weiner amendment, drastically reduces the money
that the Census Bureau needs to do its valuable work to prepare for the
2010 census and to implement the American Community Survey. They have
already sustained a $19 million cut from the President's budget
request. The money that is needed for the gentleman from New York's
(Mr. Weiner) amendment, regardless of its tremendously good intent, is
money that the President and full committee have provided to fund the
Census Bureau and the implementation of the ACS that will replace the
[[Page H5272]]
long form and provide the detailed demographic and economic data
annually for areas around the Nation.
The impact of the cut proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner) and the Weiner amendment will stop the American Community
Survey with no opportunity to restart it. It would mean a loss, as the
chairman has said, of over 1,000 Federal jobs at the Census Bureau,
boots on the ground that could provide the gentleman the accurate count
that he is rightfully concerned about; and it wastes the $500 million
already invested on the American Community Survey and would add
significant new costs to the 2010 census.
The Census Bureau, Mr. Chairman, does important work every day that
keeps our economy running. It is important work to plan for the 2010
census and fully implement the ACS. We cannot eliminate this funding,
and I strongly urge the House to reject this.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. First, I appreciate the gentleman's expertise on this
issue. Should I take it from his concerns and comments about the
undercount in New York that under his leadership he will commit to
doing something the Census Bureau has refused to do, which is a
statistical adjustment to take into account the undercount and adjust
New York accordingly? I mean, I appreciate the gentleman's protests;
but to be honest with him, it was not a shortage of data. It was a
shortage of a desire on the part of the Census Bureau to use that data
to enfranchise those who were disenfranchised.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 2000 census was the
most accurate census in this Nation's history. In a Nation as large and
diverse as ours, we will never, ever have a perfect count, and they
have been doing these since Caesar. There is yet to be a perfect count.
I acknowledge the gentleman's concern with the undercount; and I also
acknowledge that gutting their budget, which is what the gentleman's
amendment does, will not improve the accuracy of the 2010 census.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to make a couple of quick points here.
Look, the problem is not that there is an undercount. The problem is
they discovered the undercount and steadfastly refused to do anything
about it. By the way, in the data that we are going to be accumulating
over the next 10 years, we can include the number 7,300. That is the
number of employed police officers in the State of Florida today as a
result of the COPS program. Those are working men and women in my
colleague's hometown, in the hometown of the gentleman from Virginia,
in my hometown that are simply not going to be there because we are
eviscerating the COPS program.
We have taken a $1.3 billion hiring program, and we propose in this
budget to make it $114 million, and to say, well, the President said
nothing, so we should be thrilled.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman answer, for the purpose
of enlightening the House, how much additional money local law
enforcement New York City has received under homeland security grants?
Mr. WEINER. Under homeland security grants, well, frankly, per
capita, about one-sixth the amount of Wyoming. Any other question?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, give us the
bottom line number for those who are not into per capita, how many
billions of dollars has New York received since September 2001?
Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, in homeland security funding?
Actually, let us talk about how much is cut.
The COPS program at one time funded 7,000 police officers in the City
of New York; and by the way, I can check for a moment if the gentleman
gives me his hometown how many funds in his neighborhood and that has
been steadily slashed.
John Ashcroft, the Attorney General of the Nation of the United
States, said that this is the best program to reduce crime. Secretary
Ridge said homeland security starts in our hometown. What are we doing?
Slashing the COPS program.
I can assure my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, they oppose slashing the
COPS program, not knowing my colleague all that well, but knowing how
it has been helpful to his community. We are doing it. We are not happy
about doing it.
All I am saying is let us bring it to at least last year's level. Do
not bring it to what we authorized in the House, $1 billion. I am sure
the gentleman voted for it, $1 billion authorization level, $113
million half of what it was last year.
Listen, I do not have any beef with the census; and as I said, the
chairman and the ranking member have a Herculean task trying to make
these numbers work. All I am saying is this is one program that is a
dramatic step up for something that they are trying to ramp up that I
think they should, but we have to be sure we do not ramp down the COPS
program into the ground in the process. The COPS program will cease to
exist effectively.
As of last year, 15 percent of the States that applied got the
grants. Effectively, if we cut that in half, do the math, effectively
the COPS program is dead.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, while I am extremely sympathetic to the
cause my good friend from New York supports, I cannot support this
amendment. Taking money from the census planning will cripple that
effort and have consequences that will damage the census throughout
this decade.
All of our representation in this Congress and our local and State
bodies is based on census numbers. The funding that we receive in
localities across this Nation are based on census numbers. Working to
make it as accurate as possible is absolutely fundamental to the
fairness of our democracy.
The 2000 census was the most expensive in history and was not very
much more accurate than the 1990 census. Demographic analysis failed to
capture the growth in Hispanic migration and, as a result, was of
little use in measuring the accuracy of the census.
{time} 1745
The census annual estimates of the population were off by almost 8
million in 2000. These and many other errors were the result of a
failure of Congress to adequately fund the planning for the 2000
census.
The census is an enormous management undertaking. It is the largest
peacetime mobilization the government undertakes. The census requires
planning to mobilize hundreds of thousands of workers for a few weeks.
In 2000, it took 500 offices and 500,000 workers. The Census Bureau
opens those offices, hires a staff, and closes those offices all in a
few weeks. Over 100 million forms have to be printed, labeled, and
mailed. Those forms have to be returned by mail and the information on
them tabulated, and all of this must be done in the 9 months between
April 1 and December 31, when the director must submit to the President
the State numbers for apportionment.
The budget for 2005 is essential for a fair and accurate census in
2010. The cut called for in this amendment will result in a poorly
executed 2010 census. That, in turn, will result in millions of errors
that will distort the apportionment of the seats in this House. These
cuts will result in a more costly or less accurate census or both.
In this Information Age, we need reliable information in order to
make good decisions for this Nation. Without good data, we cannot
administer the laws of this country fairly, and I, for one, will
continue to do all I can to make sure that the Census Bureau has the
capabilities to provide the Congress and the Nation with the ability to
provide all of us with high-quality data needed by the public and the
private sector and its elected representatives to make informed public
policy decisions. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have yet to hear a single opponent of the amendment say the words
``with
[[Page H5273]]
full funding we will have a statistical undercount adjustment.'' And
the reason we cannot is that the Census Bureau is not committed to
that.
It is not a matter of collecting the information, I say to my
colleagues. It is a matter of what you do with it. And simply
collecting the information, as we learned in 2000, is not the problem.
When you have a Census Bureau that is unwilling to make adjustments, we
are arguing for the wrong thing.
I can tell you this though, in the census figures, when they do
employment, they are going to have less folks for cops. It is what they
will have as a result of this idea of ending the COPS program.
Let us try to remember here what we are talking about. We are talking
about a program that has not only hired over 125,000 cops, not only
paid overtime in over 4,000 different jurisdictions, not only bought
radios and repeaters, and Sprint systems for inside cars in dozens of
police forces, it has resulted in the reduction of at least 150,000
violent crimes. It is an enormously successful program. Let us keep our
eyes on the ball.
We all recognize here that both programs are good. It is just a
matter of whether one will be ramped up very much at the expense of the
other. That is all this amendment seeks to do, is to just try to
restore the COPS program to a barely living, barely heartbeating pace.
If we restore it with my amendment, I want to just caution my
colleagues, it will still mean that only 15 percent of the applicants
are going to get grants. That is all it means. Last year, they did not
accept everyone's applications because we had strangled the money so
sharply. They used fiscal year 2003 applications.
If we continue on this path and halve it again, I am convinced, my
colleagues, when we come here in future years, the COPS program will
cease to exist on almost any level that we know it. We must not allow
the structural reforms that we made here to block grant the whole
program being an excuse to slash it by 50 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me make a few brief comments here. We
keep talking about full funding and an adjustment to the census count.
We have all been in support of that. But let us remember that perhaps
the largest reason why the Census Bureau did not adjust the count was
for the tremendous congressional pressure that fell upon it when it was
discussing that issue.
Now, that is not going to satisfy the sponsor of the amendment.
However, I would like just to alert the sponsor of the amendment that
the biggest bump-up this year, or in years past, certainly since
September 11 of 2001, has not been the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau
is just an easy target because, supposedly, it does not have a
constituency, except for poor minorities who want to get counted and do
not get counted. The big bump-up has been the Department of Justice,
the Department of State, and the FBI. But no one would dare take money
from there to pay for cops in the city, because that has big
congressional, Presidential, administration and local support.
So if we are going to talk about who to take money from, let us
sometimes be courageous enough to take it from where it exists, in
bundles, and not where we could cripple the future count in our
communities.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond to two of the points.
First of all, it was the Census Bureau, the Secretary of Commerce,
who decided not to do the undercount. You are absolutely right, some of
our colleagues opposed it. It was the Census Bureau that took this to
the Supreme Court, insisting they had the right, and the Supreme Court
agreed with them. They did it, the administration of the agency that
you are standing up for did it.
The second point I would make is that 225 Members of this House
supported the reauthorization of the COPS program at $1 billion. If you
think that this program is some fringe program that very few people
care about, I can show you on the map how many police departments have
benefited from it. This is an enormously popular program. The
difference is that these are cops that go directly to our
neighborhoods, directly to our districts, directly to sheriffs'
offices. This even bypasses the States, this program is run so well.
That is what we have reduced to virtually nothing in this, and that is
what we are trying to at least bump up to last year's level. Not an
overly ambitious thing, just to last year's level.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Just one last point, Mr. Chairman. I am, for the record,
and continue to be a strong supporter of the COPS program. I will be
working with the chairman to see how we can get better in conference
and will be working with the chairman next year, hopefully, or should I
say that next year the chairman will be working with me to make sure
that we can bump up the COPS program.
But just for the record, when President Clinton proposed to this
Congress the COPS program, it was a temporary program to reach 100,000
new cops. We are at 119,000 cops. So while it is true that we want to
do more, let us not paint it as a failure or a shortcoming. In fact, it
has produced and accomplished quite a bit.
Mr. WOLF. Would the Chairman tell us how much time is available for
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 5 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Who gets to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the
subcommittee, both of whom I have profound respect for and the
difficulty of the job they face. But I think one thing needs to be made
very clear. We have had a dramatic, precipitous drop in crime in this
country under Democratic Presidents, under Republican Presidents, under
Democratic Congresses, under Republican Congresses.
One thing that has been consistent is that, when that happens,
although criminologists wring their hands trying to think of reasons,
the bottom line is very simple. We, the Federal Government, got off the
sidelines and said this is not just a local problem. This is a national
priority. And we started systematically helping localities fund a COPS
program. And it has worked; as hiring has gone up, crime has come down.
In the midst of all of that, September 11 happened, where we once
again wrapped ourselves in the dogma of support for local law
enforcement. We needed to do it. This program is the embodiment of a
local law enforcement program that works. And what have we done? We
have, through the course of time, virtually eliminated it. It is not
hyperbole. We now have a $114 million allocation from a high of $1.4
billion. That is the fact.
What I propose to do in this amendment is frankly quite modest. It is
to raise it up to last year's paltry level of $230-something million.
And again to reiterate, the Census Bureau, while I have my beefs with
it and I know other colleagues do, this is not intended to target them.
This is intended to simply prioritize a program that we are ramping up
towards a 2010 census and a program that is dying a slow death today,
and also a program that I think we all agree is the front line of
defense in our homeland security plan.
What we need to recognize with this amendment is that we have been
given a false choice that the chairman did not choose and I did not
choose. It is to take a bill that is underfunded, indisputably
underfunded, take programs that are underfunded, even the census line
is below the President's request, and what we are trying to do is
trying to make a minor change to this one program which will allow the
Census Bureau to go on. We do not touch the
[[Page H5274]]
personnel line at all. But more importantly, we will allow the COPS
program to continue functioning until we can pump some life into it.
We started that process. This Congress authorized the COPS bill that
the other body has yet to act on for $1 billion, $1 billion, which is
down, but it is still, in comparison to the $114 million that we see in
the chairman's mark, obviously, a dramatic increase.
What does my amendment do? It does not stop us from counting people.
It does not do that. What does my amendment do? It does not cause a
raft of people to be laid off. It says what we are going to do is, we
are going to take this ramp-up of the census department, make it a
little slower, and we are going to allow the COPS program to breathe,
to see another day, in a bipartisan fashion.
The COPS program is probably the most democratic, with a small ``d''
program, that we in Congress act on each year. There is no pattern of
urban and rural, no pattern of north and south. Just about every
locality, every city and State, every town and sheriff's department
gets funds from it. They used to get hiring funds; now they get funds
to either allow backfill with overtime or provide other resources to
local police departments.
If my colleagues go home today and ask your police department what
program do they care most about that the Federal Government provides,
they will doubtlessly say, the COPS program, because they have seen it
work.
There is a directory the size of a phone book of State, cities, and
localities that have gotten aid from the COPS program. We are now at
the point where only 15 percent of all of the eligible applicants are
getting funding. If we allow this chairman's mark to pass, that number,
by theory, will reduce in half, 7 percent.
What are we going to tell our police departments and our sheriffs'
offices? Well, you are eligible for the grant, you got it a couple of
years ago, but I am sorry, we cannot because we are funding a ramp-up
in the Census Bureau. I do not believe they will be very satisfied with
that.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Weiner/Keller/Ramstad/Quinn/Andrews/Van
Hollen/Platts amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and I thank the gentleman
from New York as well. He and I have talked about this amendment.
I am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, I have been and
continue to be a very strong supporter of the COPS program. And what
the gentleman's amendment does is dramatically point out that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) do not have sufficient funds to properly reach the levels that
would be appropriate for funding for some very, very worthwhile
programs.
On the other hand, when you are in this position, obviously you have
to make choices. If you are going to have a zero sum game, that is, add
no additional dollars, which would not be allowed, you have to take
from some place if you want to increase in another place. The problem
with this amendment, as I have told my friend from New York, is not its
objective, which is an excellent one, but it is the means that it
employs to attain that objective, which will have very serious adverse
results, in my opinion.
Now, the gentleman has indicated that he is confident it will have no
adverse effect on employment levels. I think that is not the case. It
is not the information I have. Now, as I have told the gentleman,
obviously, I, as a matter of fact, went to high school a mile down the
road from the Census Bureau, so I know something about the Census
Bureau. It will, according to the Census Bureau, result in possibly as
many as 1,000 RIFs. Now, that is a lot of people.
Now, in addition to adversely affecting the people, the gentleman's
amendment will affect the product adversely. Now, what is the product?
The product is getting ready for the census of 2010. Now, that sounds
very simple, but in fact it is a multiyear process. And if you slow it
down, you can never get back that time.
{time} 1800
Therefore, although I strongly support the gentleman's objective, I
cannot support and will therefore oppose his amendment, the means he
employs to obtain that objective. I hope this amendment is defeated not
because we should not be expanding the COPS program, but because we
should not be doing it in this particular way.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his comments. He
is exactly right. Also, the COPS program is not authorized. It has not
passed the Senate. And as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano)
said, the goal was to get 100,000 cops; and they are well beyond.
I think the important points are the reduction, as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) said, will actually debilitate the 2010 census,
resulting in the worse census ever. If this amendment were to pass for
1 year, we would have arguments in the future about how this count is
not right and Members would be up in arms.
Secondly, once the cuts are made, there is no opportunity to restart
the program.
The impact of this cut in this amendment: 1,000 jobs would be lost,
no catching up, stops the census and this wastes the $500 million
already spent and adds another $1 billion to the cost to the census in
2010. I urge strong defeat of the amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of
this very important amendment.
After 9-11, the Federal Government called upon our States and locals
to be even more vigilant and prepared for possible acts of terrorism in
addition to their daily responsibilities to protect their communities
from routine crime.
However, it doesn't make sense to put a whole lot more on their
plates and then cut off the resources to help them meet these
obligations. For example, this bill cuts the COPS program by more than
50 percent to $113 million.
That's why I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment to restore
funding to the 2004 level--$237 million--for the COPs grant program.
We're not talking about a lot of money. In fact that's just a
fraction of the $1 billion authorized that this chamber overwhelmingly
approved in the DOJ reauthorization bill.
COPs has been repeatedly slashed over the years.
Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed with the lack of funds in COPs
to provide local and State agencies assistance to upgrade their
communications systems so they can talk to each other, no matter the
jurisdiction or agency. The lack of interoperable communications was a
key factor in why at least 121 firefighters died in the World Trade
Center's Towers in 2001.
Last year, Congress provided $84 million in the COPS program for
interoperability upgrades, That's not much compared to the $10 billion
estimate to make our Nation's first responders fully interoperable.
But this year it was zeroed out. And that's exactly what happened in
the Homeland Security appropriations bill this chamber approved last
month.
Meanwhile, we know it will cost between $6 billion and $10 billion to
make our Nation's public safety agencies and first responders
interoperable.
Bottom line: There's an awful lot of talk around here about
interoperability, but no real, reliable resources to help make that
happen so agencies can talk to each other in times of a catastrophic
disaster or terrorist attack.
So Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner-Keller-
Stupak amendment to at least bring us back to where were last year.
A 50 percent cut to the COPs grant program is a slap in the face to
the millions of police officers who work tirelessly to protect their
communities every day.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on a bipartisan basis to
support the amendment offered by my fellow New Yorker, Mr. Weiner, and
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, that would increase funds for
the COPS program to last year's enacted level from what is currently
more than a 50 percent cut.
Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, I have worked with countless
Members on both sides of the aisle to restore and increase Federal
funding for the COPS program. There are few programs that our
government funds that work better or more efficiently than the COPS
program does. Every day, our police men and women are patrolling our
streets, keeping our constituents safe from crime and drugs, and have
served as our first responders in times of national crises. Since
implementation of the
[[Page H5275]]
COPS program in the 90s, our Nation's violent crime rate has plummeted,
and at least some of this drop must be attributed to the number of
officers put on our streets through the COPS program.
The amendment we are offering today is a modest request for
maintaining last year's funding level of $219 million. While the
program could definitely use more money, and is actually authorized for
FY2005 at $1 billion, we must as a Congress put more highly qualified
men and women on our streets and at least fund COPS at last year's
level.
In closing, while these are tight budgetary times, I believe that
funding law enforcement programs like COPS is a justified use of our
limited resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner-
Keller-Quinn amendment.
Mr. WOLF. 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. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner)
will be postponed.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have an amendment that I will not be offering, and I just say to
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and Members, I have taken a
good deal of time on the previous amendment, and I will not offer this
amendment. But, frankly, it goes to another real weakness that we have
to address, not only in this bill but across Congress.
Last year as we pursued the effort to step up the technology of DNA,
we recognized that some fundamental things have been going on in the
world for the last 10 years or so. As DNA has become an important
crime-solving tool, States and localities have begun the process of
databasing samples of DNA of convicted offenders. All 50 States have a
program of one size or another, capturing one universe or another of
convicted offenders; and we need to get all of them essentially in a
giant Federal database so we can solve crimes.
But according to data which was collected, a program funded by this
Congress through legislation that I wrote in the Committee on the
Judiciary, we have found that hundreds of thousands, in the
neighborhood of 600,000, victims of crimes at whose crime scenes
evidence has been collected is sitting on the shelves waiting to be
analyzed for shortage of only one thing, money.
No one thinks it is good policy. In fact, many of those victims are
pressing up against the statute of limitations which means their case
will not be able to be prosecuted, even if we get around to testing it.
Included in the report was an assessment that there are not enough
crime labs, there are not enough facilities to store samples. There is
not enough money to do tests. In the committee mark, the chairman does
an excellent job of funding the President's request at $175 million. It
is estimated we need three times that amount to be able to start to dig
out of the backlog.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have a problem. Of the law
enforcement agencies surveyed nationwide for this study, 61 percent
said they do not have enough space to store their evidence and had to
dispose of some of it; 70 percent said the need for more space is
highly critical, and State crime labs have an average of a 23.9-week
backlog of analyzing data.
When a detective is investigating a sexual abuse case or rape, if
they have to wait 23.9 weeks on average before the evidence is returned
to them, they will tell you that justice delayed is justice that is
denied.
My final point, we have had 154 cold cases solved because of
additional DNA testing that the City of New York has funded on its own.
We have leads of 204 more cases. What have they learned as they have
done these hits, they have learned what we and criminologists already
know, that rape and sexual abuse is a highly recidivistic crime.
Someone that goes out and does one, chances are is going to find their
way back into the system, having committed the crime again and again,
finding more and more victims.
In the last exchange, we talked about how crime has plummeted. The
one statistic that has not dropped, rape; rape has not. That has stayed
virtually level throughout this decline in crime everywhere in the
country. One of the ways we can solve six, seven, eight, or perhaps 10
or 20 crimes is by investing in DNA technology. For those who it
catches, it obviously finds justice for those victims; and for those
whom it frees, it allows those of us who are strong law enforcement
types, like myself, to say that the system is working better.
I will not offer my amendment today because I do not want to rehash
the same debate we just had; but I would ask that the chairman and the
ranking member strongly consider the need for additional increases, and
express my gratitude to them for fully funding the President's request.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman not going through this
because of the time. I thank the gentleman for that. I did not want
there to be any misunderstanding. In the subcommittee mark, there is a
$77 million increase over the current level. We also have gone out of
our way to make sure there are earmarks.
This is the largest increase provided to any State and local law
enforcement program. It is a 44 percent increase. So I do not want the
record to indicate that the committee has been slacking. We have really
increased it quite dramatically, even more so particularly in a tight
budget. But it is an important program, which I strongly support; and I
know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) strongly supports it
also.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Before I begin, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their support of the Legal Services Corporation. Legal
Services funds 143 legal aid programs around the Nation to help poor
Americans gain access to the judicial system. I appreciate the
bipartisan full funding of the LSC program, and I hope we can work
together in the neare future to remove some of the few remaining
obstacles that are preventing this program from reaching its full
potential.
My primary concern is over the ``private money restriction'' in this
bill that applies to any nonprofit legal services organization
receiving LSC funding. This restriction precludes these nonprofits from
using any of their private funds--including individual donations,
foundation grants, and State and local government funds--for any non-
LSC-qualified services.
Non-LSC-qualified services include representing many categories of
legal immigrants, including battered women and children; representing
mothers in prison trying to maintain visitation and custody of their
children; filing class actions to stop predatory lenders from preying
on elderly homeowners; and educating people about their legal rights
and then offering assistance in enforcing those rights. As a result of
the private money restriction, most civil legal services providers are
forced to stop providing non-LSC-qualified services altogether. Many of
the most vulnerable individuals and families find themselves without
access to legal services at all.
LSC recognized that this was a problem, but their attempted ``fix''
of this problem--allowing organizations to use their own private funds
for non-LSC-qualified services only if they create physically separate
nonprofits with separate staff, offices, and equipment--is
prohibitively expensive and will result in fewer families being served.
There is a much simpler and more effective way to address the
problem. Congress should require LSC grantees to abide by the same
longstanding rules promulgated by OMB for nonprofit grantees of Federal
agencies, by the IRS for all nonprofit 501(c)(3) and (c)(4)
organizations, and by the Bush administration for faith-based groups.
All of these rules authorize nonprofits receiving Federal funds to
engage in various privately funded activities--like lobbying and
praying--without requiring them to do so through physically separate
entities with separate staff and equipment. I am hopeful that future
conversations on LSC funding will consider similar rules so that we can
remove the physical space requirement, which will make our LSC-funded
providers much more effective.
My colloquy focuses on the issue of concentrated media ownership
which has concerned colleagues on both sides
[[Page H5276]]
of the aisle. Among the leaders in this fight is the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), who unfortunately could not join us on the floor
here today.
On June 2 of last year, the FCC voted to further relax the rules on
media ownership in a move which many felt threatened the core
democratic values of localism and diversity in the media.
As troubling as these new ownership rules were, the process by which
the FCC arrived at them was equally troubling. Despite its mandate to
include the American public in its rulemaking procedures, the
commission held just one public hearing as it wrote these new rules,
and it did not release the rules for public comment until just before
it voted on them. Our communities were given virtually no say in the
type of programming they are subjected to by broadcast television and
radio.
Mr. Chairman, on June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Philadelphia Circuit echoed the voice of the American people and many
in Congress by reversing most of the FCC's media ownership rules. As a
result, aside from the national media ownership cap that was adjusted
by Congress last year, the rules in effect before the FCC's June 2,
2003, decision are again in place.
As the commission begins the process of proposing any new rules, we
must make sure that the process is as open and inclusive as possible.
Specifically, I believe the FCC should, first, hold a series of public
hearings across the country to collect and analyze the various
perspectives raised by citizens.
Secondly, allow sufficient time for public comment on the specifics
of any proposed rules before the commission votes on them.
And, thirdly, take into account any independent studies of the effect
of media consolidation on the level of indecent programming on the
public airwaves.
I would ask my colleagues to comment on these expectations.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The
gentleman from North Carolina over the past year has demonstrated that
the rules governing media ownership are of great importance to the
American people. I agree that the FCC's new media consolidation
proceedings should be as open and as inclusive as possible and should
include full periods of public comment on proposed rules and full
consideration of any relevant independent studies as part of the
process.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also offer my strong support for an
open, public rulemaking process that includes multiple public hearings,
sufficient time for public comments, and any relevant independent
studies.
The more than 2 million people who contacted the FCC to register
their opposition to the rules offers clear evidence that we cannot
rewrite media ownership rules without including the American public in
the process. I will be monitoring the FCC's activities closely as it
begins this process, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which I will not offer,
but I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, if they
would comment at the end of my comments.
My amendment would have increased money for ex-offender reentry by
$50 million. It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that our country has
become the most imprisoned Nation on the face of the Earth per capita.
We have about 2 million people in jails and penitentiaries in this
country. Each year more than 600,000 of them return home to
neighborhoods and communities. Many of them obviously have no place to
go. Many of them have no programs to access.
Studies have suggested and have shown that if nothing happens with
them, about 67 percent of them will have reoffended within a period of
3 years. About 53 percent of them will be back reincarcerated. In many
States and localities, they cannot access jobs. For example, in my
State, the State of Illinois, there are 57 job titles that an ex-
offender cannot hold by State law without some kind of waiver. For
example, an individual cannot cut hair, cannot get a license to be a
nail technician, to be a cosmetologist, cannot work around any medical
facility, cannot wash dishes in a nursing home or a hospital. So many
of these individuals revert right back to whatever it was that got them
incarcerated in the first place. That is, they are back on the streets
in their neighborhoods hauling pills and thrills, nickles and dimes,
whatever it is they have done to become a part of the underground
economy.
It would seem to me that it would be far more cost effective if we
were to create programs to facilitate their reentry back into society.
Therefore, there is a need for far more resources to do so. I must
confess I was hardened when I heard the President give his State of the
Union address and suggested in that address that we needed to do
something more for the more than 600,000 people who return each and
every year from our Nation's jails and prisons.
Some communities are far more hard hit than others. Obviously, inner
city communities that are severely depressed economically and rural
depressed communities end up with the bulk of these individuals. Other
communities may not feel them at all, but the reality is that if we
want to have the opportunity to move freely throughout our Nation,
throughout our country, then we have to do a more effective job of
helping reclaim those individuals who have been incarcerated and are
back trying to make a new life for themselves.
I would appreciate comments from the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the
ranking member.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
100 percent. I was in a program called Man to Man with Charlie Harroway
before I got elected to Congress. It was a prison reentry program
helping men out of Lorton.
{time} 1815
And I completely agree with the gentleman. I have been a great fan of
Chuck Colson in Prison Ministries for that very reason. And the night
the President offered that, I applauded, although I might tell the
gentleman I do not think there was an awful lot of applause when he
made that comment. There is $10 million in here. We have a budget
problem. There is money in Labor-H. There is also money in VA-HUD.
I would urge the gentleman to also talk to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) have a very good bill. He may very well be on
it, talking about re-entry. And I think it is absolutely critical.
Unfortunately, we are number one in the world in the number of people
in prisons per capita, and we just cannot put people in prison for
years and years, no rehabilitation and no training when they come out
and expect them as they get out to come back and be productive.
So I completely agree; and as we work through this process, anything
I can do to help the gentleman. I just want to ask the gentleman one
question: Why can they not cut hair and why can they not do those jobs
that he mentioned?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in that particular instance,
State law prohibits it. There are barriers, hundreds of them, to the
successful re-entry of these individuals because many people have
thought that the best way to handle crime was to have the most severe
punishment for individuals that they could come up with. And many of
those laws are still lingering on the books in many States
[[Page H5277]]
throughout the Nation, and they too need to be revisited.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in the book of Jeremiah
it talks about justice, and I think the people need justice, but it
also talks about righteousness and we have to deal with those. And
perhaps there is an opportunity for the Committee on the Judiciary or
we would be glad to maybe sometime have a hearing on that issue because
I agree with everything the gentleman has said. And I have learned most
of this really through Chuck Colson. We cannot just open the gate,
allow a man to walk out, and expect him to have the opportunity to make
it because he goes back to the same neighborhood, the same environment;
and they need training. So as we move along, if we can work with the
gentleman and do that. And the Portman-Souder bill, is the gentleman on
there?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if we can work with him and help him, we will
be glad to do that. And I appreciate his bringing up the amendment too.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
response.
And we are working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). We are all working on that bill.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Let me first say how I continue to be impressed by the gentleman's
passion and ability to present this issue as he presents other issues.
He speaks from the heart, and that is something that we always see. And
he speaks for people who unfortunately in this society sometimes are
totally forgotten. But he is speaking to the right two individuals.
First, no one, no one, does more for the concerns of those inmates
than the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf). The gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has through different approaches been careful
to make sure that there is not a punishment but a rehabilitation of
people, not a forgetting but perhaps a forgiving and a desire to have
people be part of the society.
And, of course, as the gentleman knows, I represent an area of the
Bronx that has always had an issue of crime and an issue of people
wanting to come back into the community and at times being accepted and
at times not being accepted.
So I assure the gentleman that we will continue to pay attention to
this matter, continue to pay attention to the dollars allocated in the
hope that some day this society fully understands the need to
rehabilitate and welcome back people in a way that says they did what
they did, they paid for that crime, now we want them to be a productive
member of society. And I thank the gentleman for his work.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 47, line 5, be considered as read and printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 28, line 19 through page 47, line 5 is
as follows:
Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence
against women as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of Child Abuse Act
of 1990 (``the 1990 Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and
Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-21); the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''); and
the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-386); $383,551,000 to remain available
until expended, as follows--
(1) $11,484,000 for the court appointed special advocate
program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
(2) $1,925,000 for child abuse training programs for
judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by
section 222 of the 1990 Act;
(3) $983,000 for grants for televised testimony, as
authorized by Part N of the 1968 Act;
(4) $176,747,000 for grants to combat violence against
women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, of which--
(A) $5,200,000 shall be for the National Institute of
Justice for research and evaluation;
(B) $10,000,000 shall be for the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start Program, as
authorized by the 1974 Act; and
(C) $15,000,000 shall be for transitional housing
assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking
or sexual assault as authorized by Public Law 108-21;
(5) $62,479,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as
authorized by part U of the 1968 Act;
(6) $38,274,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse
enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295
of the 1994 Act;
(7) $4,415,000 for training programs as authorized by
section 40152 of the 1994 Act, and for related local
demonstration projects;
(8) $2,950,000 for grants to improve the stalking and
domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602
of the 1994 Act;
(9) $9,175,000 to reduce violent crimes against women on
campus, as authorized by section 1108(a) of Public Law 106-
386;
(10) $39,322,000 for legal assistance for victims, as
authorized by section 1201 of Public Law 106-386;
(11) $4,458,000 for enhancing protection for older and
disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault as
authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
(12) $14,078,000 for the safe havens for children pilot
program as authorized by section 1301 of Public Law 106-386;
(13) $6,922,000 for education and training to end violence
against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized
by section 1402 of Public Law 106-386; and
(14) $10,339,000 for management and administration not
elsewhere specified.
Juvenile Justice Programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the Act''), and other juvenile
justice programs, including salaries and expenses in
connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Justice Assistance, $349,000,000, to
remain available until expended, as follows--
(1) $350,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as
authorized by section 204 of the Act;
(2) $84,000,000 for State and local programs authorized by
section 221 of the Act, including training and technical
assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the
Federal grants process;
(3) $70,000,000 for demonstration projects, as authorized
by sections 261 and 262 of the Act;
(4) $80,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized
by section 505 of the Act, of which--
(A) $10,000,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program;
(B) $20,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education
and training program to be administered by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance and to be coordinated with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and
(C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each
State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary
grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce
State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance
and training;
(5) $10,000,000 for Project Childsafe;
(6) $20,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act as
authorized by Public Law 106-386;
(7) $10,650,000 for Project Sentry to reduce youth gun
violence, and gang and drug-related crime;
(8) $14,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
(9) $60,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grants program as authorized by Public Law 107-273 and Guam
shall be considered a State:
Provided, That not more than 10 percent of each amount in
this section may be used for research, evaluation, and
statistics activities designed to benefit the programs or
activities authorized, and not more than 2 percent of each
amount may be used for training and technical assistance.
Public Safety Officers Benefits
To remain available until expended, for payments authorized
by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are
necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 100-
690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and $3,615,000, to remain
available until expended for payments as authorized by
section 1201(b) of said Act; and $2,795,000 for educational
assistance, as authorized by section 1212 of the 1968 Act.
General Provisions--Department of Justice
Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $60,000 from funds
appropriated
[[Page H5278]]
to the Department of Justice in this title shall be available
to the Attorney General for official reception and
representation expenses.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 104. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 105. Authorities contained in the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
(Public Law 107-273) shall remain in effect until the
effective date of a subsequent Department of Justice
appropriations authorization Act.
Sec. 106. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 107. Section 114 of Public Law 107-77 shall remain in
effect during fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 108. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2006, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 533).
Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to
establish a procurement quota following the approval of a new
drug application or an abbreviated new drug application for a
controlled substance.
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply until 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Sec. 110. The limitation established in the preceding
section shall not apply to any new drug application or
abbreviated new drug application for which the Drug
Enforcement Administration has reviewed and provided public
comments on labeling, promotion, risk management plans, and
any other documents.
Sec. 111. (a) Section 8335(b) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In the case of employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be
applied by substituting `65 years of age' for `60 years of
age'. The authority to grant exemptions in accordance with
the preceding sentence shall cease to be available after
December 31, 2009.''.
(b) Section 8425(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In the case of employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the second sentence of paragraph (1) shall be
applied by substituting `65 years of age' for `60 years of
age'. The authority to grant exemptions in accordance with
the preceding sentence shall cease to be available after
December 31, 2009.''.
Sec. 112. (a) Subchapter IV of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5759. Retention and relocation bonuses for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation
``(a) Authority.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, after consultation with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, may pay, on a case-by-case
basis, a bonus under this section to an employee of the
Bureau if--
``(1)(A) the unusually high or unique qualifications of the
employee or a special need of the Bureau for the employee's
services makes it essential to retain the employee; and
``(B) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
determines that, in the absence of such a bonus, the employee
would be likely to leave--
``(i) the Federal service; or
``(ii) for a different position in the Federal service; or
``(2) the individual is transferred to a different
geographic area with a higher cost of living (as determined
by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
``(b) Service Agreement.--Payment of a bonus under this
section is contingent upon the employee entering into a
written service agreement with the Bureau to complete a
period of service with the Bureau. Such agreement shall
include--
``(1) the period of service the individual shall be
required to complete in return for the bonus; and
``(2) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed, and the effect of the termination.
``(c) Limitation on Authority.--A bonus paid under this
section may not exceed 50 percent of the employee's basic
pay.
``(d) Impact on Basic Pay.--A retention bonus is not part
of the basic pay of an employee for any purpose.
``(e) Termination of Authority.--The authority to grant
bonuses under this section shall cease to be available after
December 31, 2009.''.
(b) The analysis for chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``5759. Retention and relocation bonuses for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.''.
Sec. 113. (a) Chapter 35 of title 5 of the United States
Code is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER VII--RETENTION OF RETIRED SPECIALIZED EMPLOYEES AT THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
``Sec. 3598. Federal Bureau of Investigation Reserve Service
``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation may provide for the establishment and training
of a Federal Bureau of Investigation Reserve Service
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `FBI Reserve
Service') for temporary reemployment of employees in the
Bureau during periods of emergency, as determined by the
Director.
``(b) Membership.--Membership in the FBI Reserve Service
shall be limited to individuals who previously served as
full-time employees of the Bureau.
``(c) Annuitants.--If an annuitant receiving an annuity
from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund becomes
temporarily reemployed pursuant to this section, such annuity
shall not be discontinued thereby. An annuitant so reemployed
shall not be considered an employee for the purposes of
chapter 83 or 84.
``(d) No Impact on Bureau Personnel Ceiling.--FBI Reserve
Service members reemployed on a temporary basis pursuant to
this section shall not count against any personnel ceiling
applicable to the Bureau.
``(e) Expenses.--The Director may provide members of the
FBI Reserve Service transportation and per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions of this
title, for the purpose of participating in any training that
relates to service as a member of the FBI Reserve Service.
``(f) Limitation on Membership.--Membership of the FBI
Reserve Service is not to exceed 500 members at any given
time.''.
(b) The analysis for chapter 35 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subchapter VII--Retention of Retired Specialized Employees at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation
``3598. Federal Bureau of Investigation reserve service.''.
Sec. 114. Section 5377(a)(2) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) a position at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the primary duties and responsibilities of which relate to
intelligence functions (as determined by the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation).''.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2005''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $41,552,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That not less than
$2,000,000 provided under this heading shall be for expenses
authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2451 and 1677b(c).
International Trade Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$61,700,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Operations and administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
[[Page H5279]]
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans
and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad
for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of
alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction
of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use
abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise
in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official
representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per
vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and
rental of tie lines, $401,513,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $8,000,000 is to be derived from fees to
be retained and used by the International Trade
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided,
That $47,509,000 shall be for Manufacturing and Services;
$39,087,000 shall be for Market Access and Compliance;
$58,044,000 shall be for the Import Administration of which
not less than $3,000,000 is for the Office of China
Compliance; $230,864,000 shall be for the United States and
Foreign Commercial Service of which $1,500,000 is for the
Advocacy Center, $2,500,000 is for the Trade Information
Center, and $2,100,000 is for a China and Middle East
Business Center; and $26,009,000 shall be for Executive
Direction and Administration: Provided further, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities without regard to
section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for the purpose of this Act,
contributions under the provisions of the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 shall include payment for
assessments for services provided as part of these
activities.
Bureau of Industry and Security
Operations and administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles
for official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use
with special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase
without regard to any price limitation otherwise established
by law, $68,393,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006, of which $7,128,000 shall be for inspections and other
activities related to national security: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further,
That payments and contributions collected and accepted for
materials or services provided as part of such activities may
be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities,
and for providing information to the public with respect to
the export administration and national security activities of
the Department of Commerce and other export control programs
of the United States and other governments.
Economic Development Administration
Economic development assistance programs
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and
for trade adjustment assistance, $289,762,000, to remain
available until expended.
Salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$30,565,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority business development
For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$28,899,000.
Economic and Information Infrastructure
Economic and Statistical Analysis
Salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $78,211,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006, of which $2,000,000 is for a grant to the National
Academy of Public Administration to study impacts of off-
shoring on the economy and workforce of the United States.
Bureau of the Census
Salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $202,765,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order to the bill?
If not, are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
PERIODIC CENSUSES AND PROGRAMS
For necessary expenses related to the 2010 decennial
census, $399,976,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That, of the total amount available related
to the 2010 decennial census, $173,806,000 is for the Re-
engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only Census,
$146,009,000 is for the American Community Survey, and
$80,161,000 is for the Master Address File/Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER)
system.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
Page 47, line 8, after ``$399,976,000'' insert ``(reduced
by $173,806,000)''.
Page 47, lines 10 through 12, strike ``$173,806,000 is for
the Re-engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only
Census,''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking
member, for the very conscientious job they have done on this bill.
They have had a difficult task. There is very much that is good in this
bill, and I do not take away from that at all.
Also, I have sat here for an hour listening to the virtues of the
Census Bureau; and, indeed, that is a very important function of our
government, and I do not want to attack that.
But I do rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget for
the Census Bureau by approximately $174 million. And the reason for
that is that this is a particular thing, and let me read from the bill.
$173,806,000 is for the reengineered design process for the short-form-
only census. In a time of record or near-record deficits, and at any
time, one wonders how in the world we can spend $173 million, almost
$174 million, on redesigning a form, and a short form at that. And I
think the short form probably does need to be redone, but at what cost?
And I would suggest to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that
perhaps they could come back to us next year or the next as we get
closer, and we are talking 5 years out, that they could come back to us
with a little more reasonable effort about what it takes to redesign a
short form. If we do not have people at the Census Bureau, and he
talked about the thousand jobs lost and all of that, but if we do not
have people at the Census Bureau that have the ability to redesign a
form for a whole lot less than $174 million, then we need some new
people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The
amendment would strike all funds to conduct a short-form census. In
spite of the unprecedented success, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) said, in 2000, the General Accounting Office concluded that
Census 2000 was conducted at a high cost and great risk. As a result,
the GAO recommended extensive and early planning and testing, including
re-engineering of the process.
We are already well under way in the planning for 2010 Census. This
plan relies on the short-form-only census that
[[Page H5280]]
fulfills the core constitutional requirement, a complete and accurate
count of the population of our country.
The Census Bureau's redesign distributes the cost of the decennial
census throughout the decade, rather than lumping the entire cost
during the decennial year. It ramps up. The gentleman's amendment would
totally eliminate the funds for the short form. The cost of delaying or
canceling the 2010 redesign and reverting to the old census method
would result in higher costs for the taxpayer. The cost of returning to
the old method would cost a total of $15 billion, $4 billion more than
the current plan. The White House statement on the bill states clearly
that the funding provided in this bill is the minimal amount viable for
the 2010 census. So I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have a lot of respect for the gentleman, but I guess today is beat-
up-on-the-census day. But a very short point: it would seem to me in
saving dollars, as he wishes to do, the net effect is that we cannot
have a census. We cannot take away that much money from the preparation
and then conduct the census.
So I am not going to repeat all of the comments I made about the
importance of the census. Only one, and that is that the community that
I represent in the Bronx, the only way that the poorer communities can
get a piece of the pie, be counted properly, is to continue to improve
the census in how it is conducted and not devastate it. And, again, I
do not know and, in fact, I would venture to say that I do not think
the gentleman's intent is to stop the census from taking place because
that is a constitutional question; but the effect is that while there
may be a census taking place, we do not know what kind of a census it
would be because if we cut out all the moneys for the preparation and
the setup, there is no way that we can conduct it properly.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
for many of the reasons that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano)
and I gave earlier in support of having an accurate census. It takes
years of planning for a census, and the funds people would cut today
are the funds that pay for that planning. These cuts will result in a
more costly or less accurate census or both. We need to put this
funding forward now; and if we do not do it now, we will have to pay
for twice the work next year, and that really does not save money.
A lot of the questions that are on the American Community Survey and
on the census forms are questions that are required by law and are
required by a legislative-mandated program. For example, we collect
information on income to determine the number of children in poverty,
and this data is used to distribute the title I education funds, and
that pays for reading teachers and other specialists.
I know that every one of my colleagues has heard from their local
communities when these funds are cut, and all of these funding formulas
are tied to census numbers. The more accurate the numbers are, the
fairer our democracy is.
So those who would cut the funding for this census and offer no
replacement for the functions that the census serves, they would have
us do without accurate numbers; and in the absence of accurate
information, funds get distributed by those who control the purse
strings, not based on the merit of the programs or the merit of the
numbers.
So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment in favor
of directing Federal funds to where they can do the most good based on
accurate census numbers. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not want to extend the debate on the virtues of the census. We
have heard the same things over and over again, and all of us agree
with that. And I have no desire whatsoever, as the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano) said, to do away with the census. We are supposed to
do the census, and we need to do it as accurately as we possibly can.
And we are not with this amendment doing away with all the setup for
the census. We are doing away with the engineering of one form at the
expense of $174 million, the engineering of one form. And we have 5
additional years to look at this and determine what is reasonable.
There is going to have to be some money to do this because the form
ought to be redone.
{time} 1830
So we have 5 years for them to come back to us with a reasonable
figure, and we will grant that figure so they can do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, to close, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman from
Virginia, and I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we preserve the American Community
Survey for a couple of reasons. One, it is optional. The controversy
that has arisen over time is with the intrusiveness of the long form.
The ACS replaces that.
But, secondly and even more importantly, the ACS gives communities
and States and businesses and demographers annual data, good, solid,
accurate annual data, not a snapshot on a decennial basis. If you look
at the towns that are wiped out by tornadoes in the Midwest, they have
to wait 10 years for the formulas affecting them to be updated. If you
look at what has happened to midtown Manhattan since 2001, or northern
Virginia, or what happened all around the country for a variety of
reasons, the information is not updated until 10 years after the fact.
They have to wait until the next big census.
The ACS replaces that with a shorter version that is a sampling of
the Nation that is done every year. It is more accurate information, it
is more helpful to the local governments who depend upon that
information for the formulas that are generated by our government, and
frankly, it is less intrusive to the American people.
Defeat the Hefley amendment. Protect the American Community Survey.
It is a modernization of the American census.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, for instance, I just
came across some information, just to give you an idea of what we are
up against here.
The Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital
plans to use the American Community Survey data to identify Bronx, that
is my district, neighborhoods with demographic characteristics
associated with the risk of Type II diabetes in children.
I bring that up because I have been making the argument you have all
day long that this information gathered by the census goes beyond what
people think. It is vital information needed to provide incredible
services to the community. Once they use those numbers based on the
census data, they can make their argument before us at a public
hearing, or at any kind of institutional hearing, saying we need this
kind of help.
Who would have thought that Type II diabetes would be an issue for
the census to be helpful with? That is just one of the countless items
that they cover. So I say that, and I thank the gentleman for granting
me this time, in agreement and in support of the gentleman's comments
and words.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point
is well taken.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time having expired, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses
[[Page H5281]]
and programs provided for by law, $171,140,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006, of which $73,473,000 is
for economic statistics programs and $97,667,000 is for
demographic statistics programs: Provided, That regarding
construction of a facility at the Suitland Federal Center,
quarterly reports regarding the expenditure of funds and
project planning, design and cost decisions shall be provided
by the Bureau, in cooperation with the General Services
Administration, to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act
under the heading ``Bureau of the Census, Periodic Censuses
and Programs'' shall be used to fund the construction and
tenant build-out costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal
Center.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $15,282,000, to remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the
Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs
incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations,
and related services and such fees shall be retained and used
as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum
services, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to
retain and use as offsetting collections all funds
transferred, or previously transferred, from other Government
agencies for all costs incurred in telecommunications
research, engineering, and related activities by the
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA, in
furtherance of its assigned functions under this paragraph,
and such funds received from other Government agencies shall
remain available until expended.
Public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction
For the administration of grants authorized by section 392
of the Communications Act of 1934, $2,538,000, to remain
available until expended as authorized by section 391 of the
Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions of
section 391 of the Act, the prior year unobligated balances
may be made available for grants for projects for which
applications have been submitted and approved during any
fiscal year.
Information infrastructure grants
For the administration of prior year grants, recoveries and
unobligated balances of funds previously appropriated for
grants are available only for the administration of all open
grants until their expiration.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of
suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, $1,314,653,000, which shall be
derived from offsetting collections assessed and collected
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and
shall be retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2005, so as to
result in a fiscal year 2005 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at $0: Provided further, That during fiscal
year 2005, should the total amount of offsetting fee
collections be less than $1,314,653,000, this amount shall be
reduced accordingly: Provided further, That not less than 584
full-time equivalents, 602 positions and $78,450,000 shall be
for the examination of trademark applications; and not less
than 5,435 full-time equivalents, 5,848 positions and
$866,007,000 shall be for the examination and searching of
patent applications: Provided further, That not more than 264
full-time equivalents, 271 positions and $36,861,000 shall be
for the Office of the General Counsel: Provided further, That
from amounts provided herein, not to exceed $1,000 shall be
made available in fiscal year 2005 for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United States Code,
no employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
may accept payment or reimbursement from a non-Federal entity
for travel, subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose
of enabling an employee to attend and participate in a
convention, conference, or meeting when the entity offering
payment or reimbursement is a person or corporation subject
to regulation by the Office, or represents a person or
corporation subject to regulation by the Office, unless the
person or corporation is an organization exempt from taxation
pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
Upon enactment of authorization to increase fees collected
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 41, any resulting increased receipts
may be collected and credited to this account as offsetting
collections: Provided, That not to exceed $218,754,000
derived from such offsetting collections shall be available
until expended for authorized purposes: Provided further,
That not less than 58 full-time equivalents, 72 positions and
$5,551,000 shall be for the examination of trademark
applications; and not less than 378 full-time equivalents,
709 positions and $106,986,000 shall be for the examination
and searching of patent applications: Provided further, That
not more than 20 full-time equivalents, 20 positions and
$4,955,000 shall be for the Office of the General Counsel:
Provided further, That the total amount appropriated from
fees collected in fiscal year 2005, including such increased
fees, shall not exceed $1,533,407,000: Provided further, That
in fiscal year 2005, from the amounts made available for
``Salaries and Expenses'' for the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO), the amounts necessary to pay (1) the
difference between the percentage of basic pay contributed by
the PTO and employees under section 8334(a) of title 5,
United States Code, and the normal cost percentage (as
defined by section 8331(17) of that title) of basic pay, of
employees subject to subchapter III of chapter 83 of that
title; and (2) the present value of the otherwise unfunded
accruing costs, as determined by the Office of Personnel
Management, of post-retirement life insurance and post-
retirement health benefits coverage for all PTO employees,
shall be transferred to the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, the Employees Life Insurance Fund, and the
Employees Health Benefits Fund, as appropriate, and shall be
available for the authorized purposes of those accounts.
Science and Technology
Technology Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology Office of Technology Policy, $6,547,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Scientific and technical research and services
For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $375,838,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $8,982,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.
Industrial technology services
For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $106,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Construction of research facilities
For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and
maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as
authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $43,132,000, to remain
available until expended.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, research, and facilities
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft;
grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities as authorized, $2,245,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2006: Provided, That fees and donations
received by the National Ocean Service for the management of
the national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for
the salaries and expenses associated with those activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That, in
addition, $79,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the
fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and
Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided
further, That, of the $2,337,000,000 provided for in direct
obligations under this heading (of which $2,245,000,000 is
appropriated from the General Fund, $79,000,000 is provided
by transfer, and $13,000,000 is derived from deobligations
from prior years), $351,000,000 shall be for the National
Ocean Service, $525,700,000 shall be for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, $318,500,000 shall be for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research, $698,700,000 shall be for the National
Weather Service, $139,500,000 shall be for the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and
$303,600,000 shall be for Program Support: Provided further,
That no general administrative charge shall be applied
against an assigned activity included in this Act or the
report accompanying this Act: Provided further, That the
total amount available for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration corporate services administrative support
costs shall not exceed $173,600,000: Provided further, That
any deviation from the amounts designated for specific
activities in the report accompanying this Act, or any use of
deobligated balances of funds provided under this heading in
previous years shall be subject to the procedures set forth
in section 605 of this Act.
In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits
Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel
and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act
(10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.
[[Page H5282]]
Procurement, acquisition and construction
For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital
assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $840,000,000
to remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That
of the amounts provided for the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only
be made available on a dollar for dollar matching basis with
funds provided for the same purpose by the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That any use of deobligated
balances of funds provided under this heading in previous
years shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section
605 of this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act or any other Act under the heading
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' shall be used to
fund the General Services Administration's standard
construction and tenant build-out costs of a facility at the
Suitland Federal Center.
Pacific coastal salmon recovery
For necessary expenses associated with conservation and
habitat restoration of Pacific salmon populations listed as
endangered or threatened, $80,000,000.
Fisheries finance program account
For the costs of direct loans, $287,000, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: Provided
further, That these funds are only available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $30,000,000 for traditional loan programs,
fishing capacity reduction programs, individual fishing
quotas, aquaculture facilities, reconditioning of fishing
vessels for the purpose of reducing bycatch or reducing
capacity in an overfished fishery, and the purchase of assets
sold at foreclosure instituted by the Secretary: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for direct loans for any new fishing
vessel that will increase the harvesting capacity in any
United States fishery.
Departmental Management
Salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the departmental management of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $52,109,000:
Provided, That not to exceed 12 full-time equivalents and
$1,621,000 shall be expended for the legislative affairs
function of the Department.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. 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. Kucinich:
Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $50,000) (increased by $50,000)''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will
control 15 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich-Visclosky amendment corrects a significant
flaw in the administration's manufacturing policy.
Let us review recent history. During President Bush's term,
manufacturing has shrunk, factory jobs have decreased, steel companies
have closed; 13 steel companies and 14.6 million tons of capacity have
been shut down since this administration took office. Cheap foreign
imports are up. The trade deficit is up. This was a $549 billion drag
on the economy last year, and that is a record. In other words, on this
administration's watch, the manufacturing base of our economy has
eroded.
Now, it happens that much of American manufacturing occurs in a few
States, and we are in an election year when those States get some
attention. After ignoring the deterioration of American manufacturing
for most of its term, this administration wants voters to believe that
it cares, so the President announced just last month the creation of a
Manufacturing Council.
The purpose of the Council, according to a news release, is to ``work
with the Commerce Department to advocate, coordinate and implement
policies that will help U.S. manufacturers compete worldwide.''
The Council is comprised of CEOs from a number of industries.
However, it is marred by the omission of any union representative or,
surprisingly, steel industry representatives. Apparently, we have to
remind the administration about the importance of steel.
Steel makes the railroads, it holds up the buildings of our cities,
it armors our tanks and ships, but basic steel is completely excluded
from the President's Manufacturing Council.
All manufactured goods are made by people. Steel is made by people.
These people form unions. Union labor built modern America. Union labor
builds steel. But the President excluded union labor from his
Manufacturing Council.
How can this administration be serious about manufacturing, when it
ignores the basic steel industry and union workers? Does it think that
buildings build themselves, that cars forge, stamp and assemble
themselves, and that America can make basic steel appear by magic? Or
does the administration's manufacturing plan actually consist of
offshore factories, freely flowing imports and out-of-work American
steelworkers?
The Kucinich-Visclosky amendment sends a clear message to the
President: Congress believes that a manufacturing policy for America
must include the steel industry and the participation of union labor.
The amendment accomplishes this by expanding membership on the
President's Manufacturing Council to include the steel industry and
America's manufacturing unions. The amendment will cut a nominal amount
of funding for the President's Manufacturing Council until that
essential change is made, but it will have no effect on spending levels
of the bill as a whole.
The Visclosky amendment is supported by the steelworkers union, and
at the appropriate point in the record, Mr. Chairman, I will insert a
letter from the United Steelworkers of America in favor of the
Kucinich-Visclosky amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join with me in correcting a
significant flaw in this administration's vision for America's future.
A ``yes'' vote on the Kucinich-Visclosky amendment will encourage a
future for domestic basic steel, a future in which respect, as well as
good wages, are paid to unionized American workers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The reason is,
the amendment really does not do anything. I just read the amendment.
It says, ``Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the
following: `Reduced by $50,000) (increased by $50,000).' '' So I
understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but this does not do it.
It just really moves money around.
I understand the gentleman's concern, and I would like to bring to
the gentleman's attention to page 46 of the bill, line 22. We put $2
million in the bill for a grant to the National Academy of Public
Administration to study the impact of offshoring on the economy and on
the workforce in the United States.
I personally believe it is a problem. We have asked the National
Academy because they are not involved in the political process. We use
them for the FBI reforms and others. So they will look at that issue.
But this amendment, if it had been drafted to do what the gentleman
intends it to do, it would be subject to a point of order. Because of
that, I object to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield time to my good friend, the cosponsor of
this amendment, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), I would
like to respond to my good friend from Virginia that it is true that
the amendment reduces the spending for the Council by $50,000 and then
increases it by $50,000.
Our amendment is intended to condition $50,000 for the Manufacturing
[[Page H5283]]
Council on the expansion of its membership to correct a serious
mistake, and that is omitting basic steel and organized labor from
advising them on manufacturing. The form of the amendment has the
effect of referring to floor debate to instruct the interpretation of
the bill. The amendment will literally do what we say it will do.
I also want to commend the gentleman for the concern that he has
expressed about offshoring of our industries. I think it is important
that we pay attention to that. This amendment will help this country
put a renewed emphasis on a Manufacturing Council which has a glaring
omission: They do not have the steel industry represented on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), who has been an outstanding champion of American working
men and women and the steelworkers, not only in his district, but all
across America.
{time} 1845
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
originating the idea for this very necessary amendment; and as my
colleague mentioned, the purpose is to point out two very serious flaws
with the President's manufacturing council and to work through the
adoption of this amendment their correction.
The President in September of last year comprised his manufacturing
council theoretically to work with the Commerce Department to advocate,
coordinate, and implement policies that will help U.S. manufacturers
compete worldwide.
As my colleague from Ohio mentioned, however, the domestic steel
industry is not represented on the council. I would point out that
since December 31, 1997, 40 companies, more than 40 steel companies,
have entered into bankruptcy, many of which have never emerged.
Since December 2000, 35,700 individual workers who were employed in
basic steel have lost their jobs. During that period of time since
December 31 of the year 2000, we have also seen a decline in tonnage to
be produced in the United States by 14.6 million.
We have an industry that over the last 6 years has been in crisis,
despite their beginning to come out of that crisis during the last 6 to
9 months. It was a mistake, and it was wrong for the President and the
Department of Commerce not to have this very vital industry of our
national defense included. They should be.
Secondly, I would note that there is no representative of organized
labor on the council. The fact is 2.2 million individual American
workers belong to unions and work in manufacturing. We do have Karen
Wright, the president of Ariel Corporation, which makes gas compressors
in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, on the President's council, but we do not have a
member of the Boilermakers. We have Jim Padilla, who is the chief
operating officer of Ford Motor Company; but we do not have a member of
the United Auto Workers. We have George Gonzalez, who is president of
Aerospace Integration Corporation, which is engaged in aircraft
modifications; but we do not have a member of the Machinists Union. We
have Wayne Murdy, who is chairman of Newmont Mining Corporation of
Denver, Colorado; but we do not have a member of the Mine Workers
Union. We have Charles Pizzi, president of Tasty Baking Company, a
baking corporation headquartered in Philadelphia; but we do not have
one member of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers Or Grain
Millers.
We have a lot of people making seven-figure salaries on the
commission. We do not have people making five figures. We have Daniel
Stowe, president of R.L. Stowe Mills, Inc., who is engaged in dyed
yarn; but we do not have any members of the Union of Needle Trades,
Industrial Or Textile Employees. We have Scott Thiss, who is chairman
of S&W Plastics that does acrylic displays; but we do not have anyone
from the Graphics Communications Workers. We do not have anyone from
the Electrical Workers. We do not have anyone from the PACE Union. We
do not have Sheet Metal Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters or anyone from
the United Food and Commercial Workers.
I do think it is important, given the fact that it is the workers for
these very companies who are most at risk who have lost their jobs in
the tens of thousands be represented on this council; and I would ask
that the colleagues of this body adopt this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to read a brief statement.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a brief statement and then yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
I have here a letter from the United Steelworkers of America, which
says,
The United Steelworkers of America urges your support for an
amendment that will be offered by Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinich and Indiana Congressman Peter Visclosky. The United
Steelworkers of America strongly supports the Kucinich-
Visclosky amendment to H.R. 4754, because it corrects two
substantial omissions from the Bush administration's recently
created Manufacturing Council.
They go on to point out that no one from Labor is on the council and
also that no one from the steel industry is on the council.
Mr. Chairman, I include this for the Record as follows:
United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2004.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The United Steelworkers of America
(USWA) urges your support for an amendment that will be
offered by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Indiana
Congressman Peter Visclosky to amend the Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations bill. The USWA strongly supports the
Kucinich-Visclosky Amendment to H.R. 4754 because it corrects
two substantial omissions from the Bush Administration's
recently created Manufacturing Council.
The new Council is comprised of CEO's from a number of
industries, however, the steel industry was not included; and
we can think of no other industry better prepared to offer
constructive advice than the newly reconstituted American
steel industry. The steel industry has become a national
leader in such areas as technological innovation,
productivity and labor relations.
The second glaring omission is that no one from labor is
included on the Council. The labor movement has worked
closely with all of its manufacturing companies to ensure
continuing employment opportunities for American workers. The
President's Manufacturing Council is seriously handicapped by
not having the expertise of American labor in the important
areas of health care, pensions and compensation.
The Kucinich-Visclosky amendment would cut a nominal amount
of funding for the Council, but will have no effect on
spending levels on the bill as a whole. We urge you to vote
``YES'' on the Kucinich-Visclosky amendment and help to
ensure a manufacturing council that represents a broader
cross section of American society.
Respectfully,
William J. Klinefelter,
Assistant to the President, Legislative and Political
Director.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say if someone has steel in their
State, if they have a mill that was closed down, if they have workers,
steelworkers that have been laid off or who face layoffs, if they have
a mill which is at risk of closing, if they have retirees whose
benefits have been adversely affected by changes in the economy with
respect to steel, this amendment is something that they are going to
care about because it says that it is time to give steel full status in
the direction of America's manufacturing economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews), an outstanding voice for workers in this Congress and in
America.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding
me this time. I rise in strong support of his amendment.
When I was a child, the three largest employers in my district were a
shipyard, a soup factory, and an electronics plant that made radios and
television sets. Today, the three largest employers in my district are
a mortgage company, a hospital, and the State government. I have seen
what it means when your manufacturing base erodes and blows up and
shrivels away.
When the country tries to solve this very important problem, we need
all voices heard; and it disappoints me that the administration is
trying to tackle this problem belatedly, without
[[Page H5284]]
hearing the two voices that are so very importantly added by this
amendment: the steel industry, without which the country cannot defend
itself and cannot continue as an industrial power; and the collectively
bargained, duly elected voice of organized labor through labor unions.
Now, I know that sometimes the steel industry disagrees with the
administration and, often, organized labor disagrees with the
administration. But in our country, we do not just listen to people
with whom we agree; we welcome all points of view, all interests so
that we can come up with the best policy solution for the country.
The Kucinich amendment adds two very important voices: the steel
industry and organized labor. Even if one does not agree with their
positions on these issues, their positions ought to be heard as we
approach the manufacturing atrophy of the United States of America.
So I would urge everyone who wants all voices to be heard to vote for
this amendment which is so very much in the tradition of good
government in this country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. 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 Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 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.
Isakson) 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.
4754) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________