[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5284-H5306]
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. 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} 1858
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 the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 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 House rose earlier
today, a demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 13 offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) had been postponed and the bill was
open for amendment from page 47, line 16, through page 57, line 13.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purposes of debate;
Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 20;
Amendments 5 and 6, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
Amendment 2, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Pitts regarding Department of State Diplomatic
and Consular programs;
An amendment offered by Mr. Wolf regarding the Sudan;
An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding video violence;
An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of total
appropriations;
An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of
appropriations not required to be appropriated;
An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding the Court of Federal Claims;
An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding the Federal Trade Commission;
An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding Jerusalem;
[[Page H5285]]
An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding women's business
centers;
An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Justice Department detention of
individuals;
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding litigation support
contracts;
An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding enemy combatants, which shall
be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Wolf or Mr. Serrano regarding SBA microloans,
which shall be debatable for 12 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Cuba, which shall be debatable
for 60 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Smith of Michigan regarding NIST and
Contributions to International Organizations, which shall be debatable
for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding preemption of State laws, which
shall be debatable for 20 minutes.
{time} 1900
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in
the request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in
the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an
opponent. All points of order against each of the amendments shall be
considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon; and each
of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate
thereon. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated
in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object
described.
If there are no further amendments to this portion of the bill, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $22,249,000.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just take this time because I think it is important
for Members to understand that when this bill is opened up that means
that Members who think that they are protected under this unanimous
consent request, they should not assume that if their amendments are at
the end of the bill, they can simply come back tomorrow and they will
be handled.
The Members need to protect their rights by being here at the time
that the amendments need to be called up or else it is possible they
could lose their right.
So I think Members needs to understand, everybody cannot go away and
have a drink or supper until 9 o'clock. We are here working and if
somebody needs to offer an amendment, they need to protect themselves.
They cannot protect them if they are not here.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 108, line 22, 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 57, line 18 to page 108, line 22 is as
follows:
General Provisions--Department of Commerce
Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that
such payments are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for
salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and
1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms
or allowances therefore, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902).
Sec. 203. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance
of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset
(including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically
provided for in this or any other Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Sec. 204. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this title resulting from personnel actions
taken in response to funding reductions included in this
title or from actions taken for the care and protection of
loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within
the total budgetary resources available to such department or
agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry
out this section is provided in addition to authorities
included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of
funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 205. Hereafter, none of the funds made available by
this or any other Act for the Department of Commerce shall be
available to reimburse the Unemployment Trust Fund or any
other fund or account of the Treasury to pay for any expenses
authorized by section 8501 of title 5, United States Code,
for services performed by individuals appointed to temporary
positions within the Bureau of the Census for purposes
relating to the decennial censuses of population.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005''.
TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme
Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and
grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance,
and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to
exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate
Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice
may approve, $58,122,000.
Care of the Building and Grounds
For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the
Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon
the Architect by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-
13b), $9,979,000, which shall remain available until
expended.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers
and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as
authorized by law, $22,936,000.
United States Court of International Trade
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries
of the officers and employees of the court, services, and
necessary expenses of the court, as authorized by law,
$14,888,000.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Salaries and Expenses
For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise
specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the
courts, as authorized by law, $4,177,244,000 (including the
purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed
$27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space
alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related
to new space alteration and construction projects.
In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of
Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed
$3,471,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
Defender Services
For the operation of Federal Defender organizations; the
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys
appointed to represent persons under the Criminal Justice Act
of 1964; the compensation and reimbursement of expenses of
persons furnishing investigative, expert and other services
under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e));
the compensation (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act
maximums) and reimbursement of
[[Page H5286]]
expenses of attorneys appointed to assist the court in
criminal cases where the defendant has waived representation
by counsel; the compensation and reimbursement of travel
expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of
financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in
connection with transfers from the United States to foreign
countries with which the United States has a treaty for the
execution of penal sentences; the compensation of attorneys
appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for the
protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1875(d); and for necessary training and general
administrative expenses, $676,469,000, to remain available
until expended.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of
commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to
rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28
U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)), $62,800,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of
land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
Court Security
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
incident to providing protective guard services for United
States courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court
operations, and the procurement, installation, and
maintenance of security equipment for United States
courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court
operations, including building ingress-egress control,
inspection of mail and packages, directed security patrols,
perimeter security, basic security services provided by the
Department of Homeland Security, and other similar activities
as authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and
Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $379,580,000, of
which not to exceed $15,000,000 shall remain available until
expended, to be expended directly or transferred to the
United States Marshals Service, which shall be responsible
for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program
consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts and the Attorney General.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor
vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and
rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $68,635,000,
of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Federal Judicial Center
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as
authorized by Public Law 90-219, $21,737,000; of which
$1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2006,
to provide education and training to Federal court personnel;
and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Judicial Retirement Funds
Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds
For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $32,000,000; to the Judicial
Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c),
$2,000,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims
Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l),
$2,700,000.
United States Sentencing Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code,
$13,304,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for
official reception and representation expenses.
General Provisions--The Judiciary
Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this
title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but
no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and
``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', shall be
increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers:
Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
salaries and expenses appropriation for Courts of Appeals,
District Courts, and Other Judicial Services shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses
of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided,
That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall
be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of
the Judicial Conference.
This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations
Act, 2005''.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by
section 801 of the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international
organizations in which the United States participates
pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and
consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms
control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as
authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of
general administration, $3,580,000,000: Provided, That not to
exceed 71 permanent positions and $8,649,000 shall be
expended for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs: Provided
further, That, of the amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and
merged with, funds in the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service'' appropriations account, to be available
only for emergency evacuations and terrorism rewards:
Provided further, That, of the amount made available under
this heading, $319,994,000 shall be available only for public
diplomacy international information programs: Provided
further, That of the amount made available under this
heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for the
operations of the Office on Right-Sizing the United States
Government Overseas Presence: Provided further, That funds
available under this heading may be available for a United
States Government interagency task force to examine,
coordinate and oversee United States participation in the
United Nations headquarters renovation project: Provided
further, That no funds may be obligated or expended for
processing licenses for the export of satellites of United
States origin (including commercial satellites and satellite
components) to the People's Republic of China unless, at
least 15 days in advance, the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified of
such proposed action.
In addition, not to exceed $1,426,000 shall be derived from
fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use
of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in
addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000,
to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to
be used for the purposes set out in that section; in
addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and
publication programs and from fees from educational advising
and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in
addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from
reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House
facilities.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
$658,701,000, to remain available until expended.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide OpenNet and
classified connectivity infrastructure, $40,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Capital Investment Fund
For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
$100,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$30,435,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to
post inspections.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized, $345,346,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended, may be credited to this
appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in
connection with English teaching, educational advising and
counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as
authorized.
Representation Allowances
For representation allowances as authorized, $8,640,000.
Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials
For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services, as authorized, $9,894,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2006.
[[Page H5287]]
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-303), preserving,
maintaining, repairing, and planning for buildings that are
owned or directly leased by the Department of State,
renovating, in addition to funds otherwise available, the
Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the Diplomatic
Security Construction Program as authorized, $611,680,000, to
remain available until expended as authorized, of which not
to exceed $25,000 may be used for domestic and overseas
representation as authorized: Provided, That none of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for
acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or generators for
other departments and agencies.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
acquisition, and construction as authorized, $912,320,000, to
remain available until expended.
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service
For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service, $7,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.
Repatriation Loans Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, $612,000, as authorized:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $607,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account
under Administration of Foreign Affairs.
Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan
For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act (Public Law 96-8), $19,482,000.
Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund
For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $132,600,000.
International Organizations
Contributions to International Organizations
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, $1,194,210,000, of which up to
$6,000,000 may be used for the cost of a direct loan to the
United Nations for the cost of renovating its headquarters in
New York: Provided further, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loan, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal of up to $1,200,000,000: Provided further,
That any payment of arrearages under this title shall be
directed toward special activities that are mutually agreed
upon by the United States and the respective international
organization: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for a
United States contribution to an international organization
for the United States share of interest costs made known to
the United States Government by such organization for loans
incurred on or after October 1, 1984, through external
borrowings, except that such restriction shall not apply to
loans to the United Nations for renovation of its
headquarters.
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, $650,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds
made available under this Act shall be obligated or expended
for any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission
unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the new or
expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or
in an emergency as far in advance as is practicable): (1) the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and other appropriate committees of the
Congress are notified of the estimated cost and length of the
mission, the vital national interest that will be served, and
the planned exit strategy; and (2) a reprogramming of funds
pursuant to section 605 of this Act is submitted, and the
procedures therein followed, setting forth the source of
funds that will be used to pay for the cost of the new or
expanded mission: Provided further, That funds shall be
available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a certification
by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees of
the Congress that American manufacturers and suppliers are
being given opportunities to provide equipment, services, and
material for United Nations peacekeeping activities equal to
those being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading are available to pay the United States share of
the cost of court monitoring that is part of any United
Nations peacekeeping mission.
International Commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet
obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or
specific Acts of Congress, as follows:
international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico
For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United
States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for
representation; as follows:
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
$26,800,000.
Construction
For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, $4,475,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.
American Sections, International Commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $9,356,000,
of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for
representation expenses incurred by the International Joint
Commission.
International Fisheries Commissions
For necessary expenses for international fisheries
commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by
law, $19,097,000: Provided, That the United States' share of
such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.
Other
Payment to the Asia Foundation
For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the
Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $13,000,000, to remain
available until expended, as authorized.
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program
For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 2005, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.
israeli arab scholarship program
For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2005, to remain
available until expended.
East-West Center
To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying
out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to
the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between
East and West in the State of Hawaii, $5,000,000: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to
pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the
payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5376.
National Endowment for Democracy
For grants made by the Department of State to the National
Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National
Endowment for Democracy Act, $51,000,000 to remain available
until expended.
RELATED AGENCY
Broadcasting Board of Governors
International Broadcasting Operations
For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, as authorized, to carry out international
communication activities, including the purchase,
installation, rent, and improvement of facilities for radio
and television transmission and reception to Cuba, and to
make and supervise grants to the Middle East Television
Network, including Radio Sawa, for radio and television
broadcasting to the Middle East, $601,740,000; of which
$6,000,000 shall remain available until expended, not to
exceed $16,000 may be used for official receptions within the
United States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be
used for representation abroad as authorized, and not to
exceed $39,000 may be used for official reception and
representation expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;
and in addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and
revenue from business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in
receipts from cooperating international organizations, and
not to exceed $1,000,000 in receipts from privatization
[[Page H5288]]
efforts of the Voice of America and the International
Broadcasting Bureau, to remain available until expended for
carrying out authorized purposes.
Broadcasting Capital Improvements
For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase
and installation of necessary equipment for radio and
television transmission and reception as authorized,
$8,560,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized.
General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency
Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and for hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to provide equipment, technical support,
consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
Sec. 404. (a) The Senior Policy Operating Group on
Trafficking in Persons, established under section 406 of
division B of Public Law 108-7 to coordinate agency
activities regarding policies (including grants and grant
policies) involving the international trafficking in persons,
shall coordinate all such policies related to the activities
of traffickers and victims of severe forms of trafficking.
(b) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act
shall be expended to perform functions that duplicate
coordinating responsibilities of the Operating Group.
(c) The Operating Group shall continue to report only to
the authorities that appointed them pursuant to section 406
of division B of Public Law 108-7.
Sec. 405. (a) Subsection (b) of section 36 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) the disruption of financial mechanisms of a foreign
terrorist organization, including the use by the organization
of illicit narcotics production or international narcotics
trafficking--
``(A) to finance acts of international terrorism; or
``(B) to sustain or support any terrorist organization.''.
(b) Subsection (e)(1) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$25,000,000'';
(2) by striking the second period at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Without first making such determination, the Secretary may
authorize a reward of up to twice the amount specified in
this paragraph for the capture or information leading to the
capture of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization.''.
(c) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Forms of reward payment.--The Secretary may make a
reward under this section in the form of money, a nonmonetary
item (including such items as automotive vehicles), or a
combination thereof.''.
(d) Such section is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection:
``(i) Media Surveys and Advertisements.--
``(1) Surveys conducted.--For the purpose of more
effectively disseminating information about the rewards
program, the Secretary may use the resources of the rewards
program to conduct media surveys, including analyses of media
markets, means of communication, and levels of literacy, in
countries determined by the Secretary to be associated with
acts of international terrorism.
``(2) Creation and purchase of advertisements.--The
Secretary may use the resources of the rewards program to
create advertisements to disseminate information about the
rewards program. The Secretary may base the content of such
advertisements on the findings of the surveys conducted under
paragraph (1). The Secretary may purchase radio or television
time, newspaper space, or make use of any other means of
advertisement, as appropriate.''.
(e) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and of the Senate, the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate a plan to maximize awareness of the
reward available under section 36 of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708 et seq.) for
the capture or information leading to the capture of a leader
of a foreign terrorist organization who may be in Pakistan or
Afghanistan. The Secretary may use the resources of the
rewards program to prepare the plan.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2005''.
TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES
Antitrust Modernization Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Antitrust Modernization
Commission, as authorized by Public Law 107-273, $1,200,000,
to remain available until expended.
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
salaries and expenses
For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad, $499,000, as authorized by section
1303 of Public Law 99-83.
Commission on Civil Rights
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,096,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ
consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in
excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the
Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each
Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse
Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the
exception of the chairperson, who is permitted 125 billable
days.
Commission on International Religious Freedom
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304,
$1,831,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized,
$1,900,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of
official representation, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $100,000 shall be for the Political Prisoner
Database.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b);
non-monetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed
$33,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement
agencies for services to the Commission pursuant to title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections 6 and 14 of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
$334,944,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided
further, That the Commission may take no action to implement
any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization
until such time as the Committee has been notified of such
proposals, in accordance with the reprogramming provisions of
section 605 of this Act.
Federal Communications Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not
to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed
$500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to
buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles;
special counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, $279,851,000: Provided, That $272,958,000 of offsetting
collections shall be assessed and collected pursuant to
section 9 of title I of the
[[Page H5289]]
Communications Act of 1934, shall be retained and used for
necessary expenses in this appropriation, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2005 so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation estimated at
$6,893,000: Provided further, That any offsetting collections
received in excess of $272,958,000 in fiscal year 2005 shall
remain available until expended, but shall not be available
for obligation until October 1, 2005.
Federal Trade Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$203,430,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for use to
contract with a person or persons for collection services in
accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $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: Provided further, That $21,901,000 in
offsetting collections derived from fees sufficient to
implement and enforce the Telemarketing Sales Rule,
promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), shall be credited to
this account, and be retained and used for necessary expenses
in this appropriation: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2005,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation
from the general fund estimated at not more than $80,529,000:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available to
the Federal Trade Commission may be used to implement or
enforce subsections (a), (e), or (f)(2)(B) of section 43 of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831t) or
section 151(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1831t note).
HELP Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the HELP Commission, $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Legal Services Corporation
Payment to the Legal Services Corporation
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
$335,282,000, of which $316,604,000 is for basic field
programs and required independent audits; $2,573,000 is for
the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $13,160,000 is for management and administration;
and $2,945,000 is for client self-help and information
technology: Provided, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from
amounts previously appropriated under this heading may be
used for a student loan repayment pilot program.
Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation
None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2004 and 2005, respectively.
Marine Mammal Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $1,890,000.
National Veterans Business Development Corporation
For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business
Development Corporation as authorized under section 33(a) of
the Small Business Act, $2,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Securities and Exchange Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
$913,000,000, to remain available until expended; of which
not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward funding a permanent
secretariat for the International Organization of Securities
Commissions; and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be
available for expenses for consultations and meetings hosted
by the Commission with foreign governmental and other
regulatory officials, members of their delegations,
appropriate representatives and staff to exchange views
concerning developments relating to securities matters,
development and implementation of cooperation agreements
concerning securities matters and provision of technical
assistance for the development of foreign securities markets,
such expenses to include necessary logistic and
administrative expenses and the expenses of Commission staff
and foreign invitees in attendance at such consultations and
meetings including: (1) such incidental expenses as meals
taken in the course of such attendance; (2) any travel and
transportation to or from such meetings; and (3) any other
related lodging or subsistence: Provided, That fees and
charges authorized by sections 6(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)), and 13(e), 14(g) and
31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(e),
78n(g), and 78ee), shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections: Provided further, That not to exceed
$893,000,000 of such offsetting collections shall be
available until expended for necessary expenses of this
account: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be derived
from prior year unobligated balances from funds previously
appropriated to the Securities and Exchange Commission:
Provided further, That the total amount appropriated under
this heading from the general fund for fiscal year 2005 shall
be reduced as such offsetting fees are received so as to
result in a final total fiscal year 2005 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.
Small Business Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
106-554, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$322,322,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by
the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing
activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be
credited to this account, to be available for carrying out
these purposes without further appropriations.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $14,500,000.
Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund
For additional capital for the Surety Bond Guarantees
Revolving Fund, authorized by the Small Business Investment
Act, as amended, $11,400,000, to remain available until
expended.
Business Loans Program Account
Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, during fiscal year 2005 commitments to guarantee loans
under section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958, shall not exceed $4,500,000,000: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2005 commitments for general business
loans authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act, shall not exceed $12,500,000,000: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2005 commitments to guarantee loans for
debentures and participating securities under section 303(b)
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, shall not
exceed the levels established by section 20(i)(1)(C) of the
Small Business Act: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2005 guarantees of trust certificates authorized by section
5(g) of the Small Business Act shall not exceed a principal
amount of $10,000,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $128,000,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.
Disaster Loans Program Account
For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, $78,887,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $117,000,000, which may be transferred
to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses,
of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of
the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of
disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office
of Inspector General; of which $108,000,000 is for direct
administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry
out the direct loan program to remain available until
expended; and of which $8,500,000 is for indirect
administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount in excess
of $8,500,000 to be transferred to and merged with
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Administrative Provision--Small Business Administration
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation
[[Page H5290]]
shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any such
transfers: Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this
paragraph shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under
section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
State Justice Institute
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572), $2,227,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses.
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, $3,000,000, including not
more than $5,000 for the purpose of official representation.
United States Institute of Peace
operating expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $23,000,000.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel,
which would result in a change in existing programs,
activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency
repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
shipyards located outside of the United States.
Sec. 607. (a) It is the sense of Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in the Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
(c) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal
agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with
the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the
United States that is not made in the United States, the
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds made available in this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering
harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which such funds are made
available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect
from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on
October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that: (1) the United Nations undertaking is
a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking will involve
United States Armed Forces under the command or operational
control of a foreign national; and (3) the President's
military advisors have not submitted to the President a
recommendation that such involvement is in the national
security interests of the United States and the President has
not submitted to the Congress such a recommendation.
Sec. 610. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Small Business Administration shall provide to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives a quarterly accounting of the cumulative
balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such
agency during any previous fiscal year.
Sec. 611. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2005.
Sec. 612. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 613. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 614. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 616 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section
616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year
2005.
Sec. 615. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law may be used for--
(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with
the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code; and
(2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18,
United States Code, that does not require and result in the
destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on
behalf of any person who has been determined not to be
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more
than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms
licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the
prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or
(n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State
law.
Sec. 616. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts deposited or available in the Fund established under
42 U.S.C. 10601 in any fiscal year in excess of $650,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until the following
fiscal year.
Sec. 617. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 618. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of State shall be available for
the purpose of granting either immigrant or nonimmigrant
visas, or both, consistent with the determination of the
Secretary of State under
[[Page H5291]]
section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to
citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents of countries that
the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined deny or
unreasonably delay accepting the return of citizens,
subjects, nationals, or residents under that section.
Sec. 619. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 620. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette
recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used
primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic
equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 621. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 622. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Small Business Administration shall, not later than two
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, certify
that telecommuting opportunities are made available to 100
percent of the eligible workforce: Provided, That, of the
total amounts appropriated to the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary, the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Small Business Administration, $5,000,000
shall be available only upon such certification: Provided
further, That each Department or agency shall provide
quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the
status of telecommuting programs, including the number of
Federal employees eligible for, and participating in, such
programs: Provided further, That each Department or agency
shall designate a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be responsible
for overseeing the implementation and operations of
telecommuting programs, and serve as a point of contact on
such programs for the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 623. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released
without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the
data.
(b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
shall include in all such data releases, language similar to
the following that would make clear that trace data cannot be
used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:
(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement
authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale
and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies
may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons
are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not
all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms
traced are used in crime.
(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for
purposes of determining which types, makes or models of
firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected
do not constitute a random sample and should not be
considered representative of the larger universe of all
firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe.
Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and
sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily
represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general
are acquired for use in crime.
Sec. 624. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act may be used to issue patents on
claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Sec. 625. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation to
the United Nations Human Rights Commission if such commission
is chaired or presided over by a country, the government of
which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of
section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for
acts of international terrorism.
Sec. 626. Section 604 of the Secure Embassy Construction
and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (title VI of division A of
H.R. 3427, as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law
106-113) is amended by adding the following new subsection at
the end:
``(e) Capital Security Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, all agencies with personnel overseas subject to chief of
mission authority pursuant to section 207 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) shall participate and
provide funding in advance for their share of costs of
providing new, safe, secure United States diplomatic
facilities, without offsets, on the basis of the total
overseas presence of each agency as determined annually by
the Secretary of State in consultation with such agency.
Amounts advanced by such agencies to the Department of State
shall be credited to the Embassy Security, Construction and
Maintenance account, and remain available until expended.
``(2) Implementation.--Implementation of this subsection
shall be carried out in a manner that encourages right-sizing
of each agency's overseas presence.
``(3) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection `agency'
does not include the Marine Security Guard.''.
TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
state and local law enforcement assistance
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$20,000,000 are rescinded.
community oriented policing services
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$61,000,000 are rescinded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this portion of the
bill?
Point of Order
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against
section 607. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI. It
proposes to change existing law, and therefore constitutes legislation
on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this section, in part, expresses a legislative
sentiment. The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
section is stricken from the bill.
Are there further points of order to this portion of the bill?
If not, are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge any Members, following up what the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, any Members that have
amendments, we have been here since noon and we are waiting on them, so
I would urge them, if they are listening, to come to the floor and
offer the amendments so we can move the process along. So if Members
can hear and are available, we would encourage them to come so
amendments could be offered.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pitts:
Page 67, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $25,000) (increased by $25,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on his leadership in the human rights issues around
the world. It is because of his leadership on these issues that I offer
my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the human rights organizations that have produced
myriad accounts of torture in detention facilities and prisons around
the globe, our own State Department in the annual Country Reports, the
Human Rights sections, reports on the use of torture in each nation
covered by the report, and our Congress has passed the Torture Victims
Relief Act of 1998 to fund recovery programs for victims of torture,
both in the United States and abroad.
Men, women, even children have endured torture at the hands of
government officials around the world. Although it is difficult to find
exact figures, Amnesty International estimates that 117 countries
worldwide still practice torture.
My amendment provides $25,000 for the State Department's Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and publish a list of
foreign government officials who order the use of, are involved in, or
engage in torture as defined by the United Nations
[[Page H5292]]
against torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or
punishment.
I have had the privilege but heart-wrenching experience of hearing
about torture from firsthand accounts of the victims, from a woman in
North Korea to firsthand reports in Egypt. We remember one case in Al
Qush where a government official, in order to find a criminal, arrested
and tortured many of the 1,100 Coptics in order to find someone to
confess committing the crime.
In China, there are numerous reports of Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong
members, house church pastors and congregants, democracy activists who
spent time in prison reform camps where they endured torture by
communist officials. A recent account, Pastor Gong Shengliang, who may
die in prison because of the effects of torture, is ongoing.
In May of last year, the Washington Post detailed a story of Concei
da Silva who was brutally tortured in Angola. While in prison,
officials hung him upside down, his veins were slashed, chunks of flesh
were carved out of his chest with a machete, electricity applied to
parts of his body, teeth removed. Awful things have happened.
In Latin America, terrible stories of torture. Sister Dianna Ortiz
has spoken out strongly regarding her horrible kidnapping torture at
the hands of the Guatemalan security forces.
The torture is horrifying, deeply affecting victims' lives. And those
responsible for these crimes should be brought to justice.
Unfortunately, in many countries the perpetrators will not be punished
for their crimes as torture is systemic.
I and many of my colleagues strongly believe that publicizing the
names of those involved in torture, government officials, can help in
the campaign to end the use of torture by government officials; and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides $25,000 to
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and maintain
a public list of individuals involved in torture.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to
thank the gentleman for offering it.
This really follows the principle that was used during the Carter
administration and during the Reagan administration by keeping lists.
Therefore, if you happen to be going to a country, when you go to China
you are able to check to see that X and Y have been tortured, so when
you meet with government officials, you can raise those cases. This is
the way it was done in the Carter administration and in the Reagan
administration.
This is a very good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering
it, and I rise in strong support of it. I urge that we accept it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) in strong support. This is an issue that the chairman has been
very strong on. We all are.
The whole situation, however, brings up a question, and I ask the
gentleman not to take this as a sarcastic statement; I just need
clarification. Does this include any ordering of torture used by a
government near to us, like our own government, or is this just for
foreign governments?
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PITTS. The gentleman knows that our policy is not to torture. Our
system is progressing in the light of day with the investigations and
the prosecution of torture, but this would apply to any government
officials who use torture.
Mr. SERRANO. But it would be any foreign government official? I know
this sounds like some sort of a sarcastic comment, but I am really
trying to get to the bottom of this. Are you only applying this to
foreign governments, or could this, in fact, be a question of our own
government if, in fact, somebody ordered torture on some people in
recent times?
Mr. PITTS. We do not specify, we do not say ``foreign.'' We specify
that the State Department compile a list of any government officials
who use torture.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman does open up an issue
which is greater perhaps than what he intended to do, but the
possibility exists that if the State Department did its job properly,
and in this case it probably will not, we will never get to the bottom
of the issue of who ordered torture on some people that we may be
dealing with in this country. But, nevertheless, I think it is a great
thought and a great idea, and I support it.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
So the amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the American Community Survey.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the
American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the
debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and
much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated.
But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with
the American Community Survey.
One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I
received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in
Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when
you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up
on the front they have warned me. They said ``The American Community
Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.''
This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so
the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that
I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the
door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who
have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the
police are there deciding they want this information.
It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this
was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear
that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does
not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do
this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to
give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the
privacy of American citizens.
Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national
census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding
for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of
congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are
talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The
argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we
save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions,
personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.
This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the
American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey
collects information about education, employment, income, housing for
the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic
planning.
How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now
that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual,
perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24
pages here.
I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the
second one, and they are threatening me. I know I
[[Page H5293]]
did not vote for it, but you who did means, you are ready to send the
census police out to get me.
{time} 1915
I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I
looked it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my
colleagues have done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every
question I do not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that
he did not answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census
police came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better
answer all these questions or you are going to be penalized.
So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all
these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if
we want this information, if people need this information in the
communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we
have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities
to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than
we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking
about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10
years.
It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want
to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for
every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not
tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work
and how long it takes you to go to work.
I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my
colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all
this meddling.
So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community
Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit
what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what
we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the
purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around
here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the
Constitution?
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this
funding.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition. The census is one of the oldest civic functions
of our Nation. Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires enumeration
of the population every 10 years. The census is the largest peacetime
mobilization of our government personnel.
The American Community Survey is designed to replace the long-form
portion for future decennial censuses, therefore leaving only the
short-form portion.
Many Americans found that filling out the long-form survey to be
burdensome, and many said this contributed to the declining response
rate of the long form, therefore costing the American taxpayer more
money to have census takers returning to the nonresponding households.
The Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on
Appropriations have worked to ensure that the Census Bureau has the
necessary funding to carry out its mission and to ensure that for 2010
there will only be a short form census.
The question of constitutionality of the American Community Survey is
not new. On April 4, 2002, the General Accounting Office responded to
the vice-chairman of the Committee on Government Reform's request for
an opinion. The GAO stated, ``Census clearly has authority to conduct
the ACS.'' There is sufficient legal authority.
If we do not fund the ACS, we will ensure we have a two-form census
in 2010, which will cost an additional $4 million for the taxpayer.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition
to the Paul amendment. This amendment would kill funding for the
American Community Survey, which is one of the most exciting and
innovative improvements to the Census in decades.
The American Community Survey is a new approach for collecting
accurate, timely information needed for critical government functions
such as funding highway planning, school lunch programs, and community
block grants.
The decennial census used to have two parts: (1) it counted the
population for reapportionment and redistricting purposes; and (2) it
obtained demographic, housing, social, and economic information by
asking one out of every six households to fill out a ``long form.''
This data has been used for the administration of Federal programs
and the distribution of billions of Federal dollars funding.
Planners and other data user had to rely on long form information
that was only gathered every ten years to make decisions that were
expensive and affected the quality of life for thousands of people.
In a nation changing as rapidly and profoundly as ours, using eight,
nine or even ten-year-old data was simply unacceptable.
Starting in 1996 the Bureau began developing the American Community
Survey to replace the long form. It had three main purposes:
1. To provide Federal, state, and local governments an accurate
information base for the administration and evaluation of government
programs.
2. To improve the 2010 Census by allowing everyone to only be
required to fill out the short form, and
3. To provide data users with timely demographic, housing, social,
and economic data updated every year that can be compared across
states, communities, and population groups.
In order to insure that the data are available for use in time for
the 2010 Census we must fund as completely as possible the ACS for this
next fiscal year.
It is also important to point out that Congress mandates every
question asked by this survey.
If this amendment were to pass, every one of these questions would
still be asked, but the Census would have to use the old-fashioned,
less effective long form method.
Finally, I want to take notice of the fact that there have been
several amendments offered today which reduce or zero out funding for
various aspects of the 2010 Census development. Members need to
understand that funding cut today cannot just be added in three or four
years from now. It takes time to develop an excellent Census and
Congress should give the Bureau the time it needs to create that
Census.
I urge my Colleagues to stand up for our communities and states and
oppose the amendment to kill the American Community Survey.
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 Texas (Mr. Paul).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
Page 92, line 16, before the colon insert the following:
``, of which $13,000,000 shall be available for microloan
technical assistance, and of which $1,000,000 shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for `Business
Loans Program Account' and shall remain available until
expended for the cost of direct loans''.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each will control 6 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the amendment. We worked with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, on this amendment. It
restores the microloan program. We are in agreement, and I ask that the
amendment be approved.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) rise to
claim the time in opposition, even though he is in favor?
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify something. Am I
correct in that there has been a mix-up here and I am no longer allowed
to strike the last word on a pro forma basis?
The CHAIRMAN. The pro forma amendments are in order on the bill and
not to the amendments.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I should have read the small print.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to reclaim my time?
[[Page H5294]]
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) reclaims his time.
There was no objection.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for this
amendment. This amendment is one that committee members and other
Members had asked for, and it is important that we move ahead on it.
We had a long discussion before on the 7(a) loan, and we passed an
amendment. We needed to take care of this one which we already had
agreed on in order to really move ahead the support that we put forth
for the SBA and for the various loans, and so I am a full supporter,
and I thank the chairman for bringing it forward.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan
amendment which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has offered to
restore funding for the Small Business Administration's microloan
program, and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) and both
of their staffs for their good work in bringing the amendment to the
floor.
The SBA microloan program began as a 5-year pilot in 1991; and
throughout its existence, the program has had strong bipartisan support
in both Chambers.
The Small Business Programs Reauthorization Amendments Act of 1997
made the microloan pilot a permanent program, and the accompanying
House report in 1997 stated: ``Begun in 1991, this program has served
the smallest and often least noticed section of the small business
community. The committee has recognized the efficacy of this program
and changed it from demonstration to permanent program status.''
Today, 170 microloan intermediary lenders nationwide provide loans to
our smallest businesses whose financial needs can often not be met by
traditional lenders.
Since its creation, the program has provided $213 million in loans,
as well as technical assistance to 19,000 microenterprises; and in the
process, it has created 60,000 jobs. We should remember that the
average loan here is about $12,000, well below other SBA programs and
far below conventional business loans by banks.
Most importantly, microloans have assisted large numbers of women-
and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses and start-up
businesses.
The microloan program is the only SBA program to offer both loans and
technical assistance to small businesses, a combination that enables an
entrepreneur with a good idea to become a businessperson with a good
bottom line.
In my district, one intermediary, the Western Massachusetts
Enterprise Fund, has made 113 loans totaling over $1.4 million, and
that program has made a difference for many entrepreneurs, providing
the financing and technical assistance necessary to launch or expand
their businesses.
If we fail to restore funding for the microloan program, we will
hamper the efforts of small entrepreneurs nationwide. Small businesses
bring innovative ideas to market and create much-needed jobs.
I urge a ``yea'' vote on the Wolf-Serrano 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 Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Paul:
Insert before the short title at the end of the bill the
following title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
to the Department of Justice may be used--
(1) to take any legal action against a physician for
prescribing or administering a drug not included in schedule
I of the schedules of controlled substances under section
202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act for the purpose of
relieving or managing pain; or
(2) to threaten legal action in order to prevent a
physician from prescribing or administering such a drug for
such purpose.
(b) None of the funds made available in this Act to the
Department of Justice may be used--
(1) to take any legal action against a person for acts
relating to the prescribing or administering by a physician
of such a drug for such purpose; or
(2) to threaten any legal action against a person in order
to prevent the person from engaging in acts relating to the
prescribing or administering by a physician of such a drug
for such purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding
to the Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal
drugs.
The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a
growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is,
that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice
Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug
kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to
go after doctors.
It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400
doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know
they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem.
It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a
problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they
face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal
bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has
prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we
have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be
used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the
doctors.
As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and
unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I
endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors
can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by
their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as
malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors
can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of
monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress,
developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of
physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use
any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the
danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the
medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with
cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally
dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these
doctors are being prosecuted.
Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it
does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody
fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to
give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this
atmosphere.
My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department
to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that
monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let
us get rid of this
[[Page H5295]]
idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain
pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from
cancer.
I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern,
any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done
too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice
medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone
bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.
So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the
Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a
long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would
be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being
prosecuted unfairly.
{time} 1930
And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is
to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a
certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their
license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of
dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it
is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all
with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.
Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is
a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication
than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure
thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get
adequate pain medication.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume. At this point I just want to say
that my mom died of cancer, my father died of cancer, and I would have
done anything to help them, and OxyContin can make a big difference.
But there has been a lot of abuse. There have been a lot of doctors
that have been doctor factories that are just prescribing this.
There were some in my area, and I have seen families that have been
devastated in southwest Virginia. I understand what the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul) is saying, but in southwest Virginia, in the rural
areas down in Lee County, there is probably not a family that has not
been impacted by the abuse of prescriptions. So it is a balance.
I understand the gentleman, being a doctor, how he feels, but there
are cases where there is tremendous abuse. That is why I think we have
to keep monitoring this.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. This amendment would
have the practical effect of putting doctors above the law. It would
prevent the federal government from taking action against a doctor who
abused his privilege of issuing prescriptions for controlled
substances, including addictive and dangerous drugs like Oxycontin.
While I have great respect for doctors, and I know that the vast
majority of them are honest, law-abiding and motivated solely by their
concern for their patients, we can't exempt them from our drug laws.
First, there is no evidence that the federal government is
``persecuting'' doctors for prescribing pain killers. Last year, in
fiscal 2003, only 50 doctors nationwide were arrested for illegal
prescriptions. That is only five one-thousandths of one percent (.005%)
of all the doctors who have DEA licenses to write prescriptions. No one
can seriously argue that the DEA is engaging in some kind of campaign
to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for pain killers.
Second, the tiny number of physicians who were arrested were not
arrested just because they prescribed pain medication. They were
arrested because they abused the public trust and the clear standards
of the profession set by their peers. These were essentially drug
dealers hiding behind a white coat. They used their professional status
to obtain sexual favors, drugs, and money.
Last year, six doctors were arrested for trading drug prescriptions
for sex. Twenty-three doctors were arrested for writing prescriptions
in exchange for money, four doctors were arrested for issuing
prescriptions in exchange for other illegal drugs, and seventeen were
arrested for writing prescriptions to obtain drugs to feed their own
drug habits. (I am attaching a listing of those arrests, provided by
the DEA, to my statement for the Record.)
Let's take a look at some examples. Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer was
convicted last March for writing 153 illegal prescriptions
for painkillers; five women testified that he demanded sex in exchange
for those prescriptions, usually for Oxycontin. Another doctor wrote
them in the dressing room of an adult nightclub, and another issued
prescriptions for sex, firearms, lawn and farm equipment, and labor on
his personal property. I don't think anyone in this House would want to
give people like that a blanket immunity from the law.
Now, it may be argued that the amendment would only prohibit
enforcement when drugs are prescribed ``for the purpose of relieving or
managing pain''. But this distinction is meaningless--because anyone
who uses a narcotic can argue that it is to relieve pain. When dealing
with problems like drug trafficking and abuse, we can't just rely on
the word of drug dealers and addicts. Instead, current law already
recognizes a reasonable judge of the conduct of doctors--the
professional standards set by their peers. I would like to note that
the American Medical Association, the largest professional organization
in the country representing doctors, has itself refused to support this
amendment--precisely because it would immunize the few bad apples who
abuse their professional trust.
In closing, I'd like to point out that this amendment would seriously
undermine our goal of reducing Oxycontin and other prescription drug
abuse. As President Bush stated in the National Drug Control Strategy
for 2004, the problem of prescription drug abuse is a growing threat
that needs to be addressed. The misuse of prescription drugs was the
second leading category of illicit drug use after marijuana, with an
estimated 6.2 million Americans having used prescription drugs for
nonmedical, illegal purposes. Oxycontin was abused in 2002 at a rate
ten times higher than in 1999. Abuse by high school seniors of Vicodin
is more than double their use of cocaine, ecstasy or methamphetamine.
Meanwhile, Internet pharmacies (which frequently rely on illegal
prescriptions), ``doctor shopping'' and other illegal drug diversion
tactics are presenting new challenges to law enforcement and the
community. Those few doctors who contribute to this problem must be
held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
DEA Arrests of Physicians--Fiscal Year 2003
summary
Prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors--6;
prescriptions in exchange for drugs--4; prescriptions for
money--23; obtaining drugs by fraud/personal abuse--17. Note:
50 arrests reported for Fiscal Year 2003 which includes 2
separate arrests of the same physician.
physicians of note
Two physicians, Dr. H and Dr. S, maintained medical
practices specializing in the treatment of chronic pain.
While both physicians treated some legitimate pain patients,
they both also practiced outside the scope of legitimate
medical practice by prescribing OxyContin for other than
legitimate medical reasons. These illegal activities led to
their investigation and subsequent arrests. Two individuals
died from overdoses of the OxyContin prescribed by one of the
physicians. One physician has been convicted of conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances. The other physician is
awaiting trial.
prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors
Dr. R--Pittsburgh--provided prescriptions for controlled
substances in exchange for sex. Date opened: 4/16/01; date of
arrest: 6/3/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful
distribution of Oxycodone, Fentanyl, & Xanax.
Dr. W--Washington--wrote prescriptions to female members of
motorcycle gangs in exchange for sex. Date opened: 6/10/03;
date of arrest: 6/10/03; conviction date: 1/14/04; charges:
unlawful distribution of Percocet.
Dr. D--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions in exchange for sex,
firearms, lawn and farm equipment and labor on his personal
property. Date opened: 4/12/00; date of arrest: 11/25/00;
conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of
CS.
Dr. L--Indianapolis--traded prescriptions for sex and
stolen property. Entertained juveniles at his home and
arrested for sodomy, firearms charges and public
intoxication. Date opened: 12/2/87; 6/9/03; date of arrest:
5/30/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful
distribution of Hydrocodone.
Dr. O--Hartford--forced patients to have sex with him in
exchange for prescriptions (2 arrests in FY 2003). Date
opened: 1/30/03; date of arrest: 2/20/03; 5/1/03; conviction
date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of Percocet &
Xanax.
prescriptions in exchange for drugs
Dr. P--Kansas City--had friends and other individuals
return the prescription medication to him. Continued to write
controlled substances after surrendering DEA registration.
Date opened: 6/25/01; date of arrest: 5/2/03; conviction
date: 10/20/03; charges: conspiracy/obtaining CS by fraud.
Dr. B--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions to individuals who
returned the drugs to him. Subsequently overdosed and died.
Date opened: 5/22/03; date of arrest: 5/22/03; conviction
date: deceased (OD); charges: unlawful distribution of CS.
[[Page H5296]]
Dr. S--Tucson--pediatric ophthalmologist who wrote
prescriptions in names of patients to procure the drugs
(Ritalin and Vicodin) for personal use. Continued to operate
on children while abusing drugs. Date opened: 8/8/01; date of
arrest: 10/8/02; conviction date: 1/6/04; charges:
conspiracy, acquiring CS by fraud.
Dr. E--Detroit--wrote prescriptions to U/C in shopping mall
parking lot and required the U/C to split the drugs with him.
Date opened: 10/10/02; date of arrest: 11/8/02; conviction
date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of OxyContin.
prescriptions for money
Dr. U--Los Angeles--sold prescriptions for cash and allowed
others to write prescriptions for controlled substances. U/C
agents made several buys from doctor. Date opened: 2/7/03;
date of arrest: 2/5/03; conviction date: 7/29/03; charges:
unlawful prescribing of CS.
Dr. H--Washington--wrote prescriptions to 45 street level
drug dealers in exchange for money. Date opened: 12/7/99;
date of arrest: 9/24/03; conviction date: pending; charges:
conspiracy; unlawful distribution; health care fraud; CCE.
Dr. C--Tampa--wrote prescriptions for money from the
dressing rooms of adult night clubs. Date opened: 6/11/01;
date of arrest: 9/9/03; conviction date: pending; charges:
trafficking; delivery of a CS.
Physician Assistant--Tampa--P/A for Dr. C. Wrote
prescriptions for money from the dressing rooms of adult
night clubs. Date opened: 6/11/01; date of arrest: 5/9/02;
conviction date: pending; charges: trafficking; delivery of a
CS.
Dr. T--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without
medical exam and for drugs specifically requested by patient
on the Internet. Date opened: 4/4/00; date of arrest: 12/19/
02; conviction date: 5/28/03; charges: conspiracy to
distribute Hydrocodone.
Dr. O--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without
medical exam and for drugs speicifically requested by patient
on the Internet. Date opened: 2/15/00; date of arrest: 12/19/
02; conviction date: 10/1/03; charges: conspiracy to
distribute Hydrocodone.
Dr. S--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without
medical exam and for drugs specifically requested by patient
on the Internet. Date opened: 2/15/00; date of arrest: 12/9/
02; conviction date: 10/1/03; charges: conspiracy to
distribute Hydrocodone.
Dr. C--Dallas--wrote prescriptions after his state medical
license was suspended. Date opened: 8/23/01; date of arrest:
4/23/03; conviction date: 10/29/03; charges: fraudulent use
of DEA registration.
Dr. M--Newark--wrote prescriptions for $75/Rx. Date opened:
1/6/03; date of arrest: 1/30/03; conviction date: deceased;
charges: unlawful distribution of CS.
Dr. D--Newark--used DEA registration to fraudulently
purchase Hydocodone tablets for illegal distribution. Date
opened: 8/25/03; date of arrest: 8/18/03; conviction date:
pending; charges: possession w/intent to distribute
Hydrocodone.
Dr. M--Orlando--wrote prescriptions to
U/C agent in exchange for money. Date opened: 9/18/00; date
of arrest: 7/29/03; conviction date: pending; charges:
trafficking in Oxycodone and Methadone.
Dr. M--Tampa--wrote prescriptions to drug dealers in
exchange for money. U/C buys made in exchange for money. Date
opened: 8/19/02; date of arrest: 1/30/03; conviction date:
pending; charges: trafficking in Oxycodone and Methadone.
Dr. B--Merrillville--73 U/C buys of prescriptions made in
exchange for money. Date opened: 2/16/02; date of arrest: 8/
25/03; conviction date: pending; charges: conspiracy to
distribute CS.
Dr. M--Puerto Rico--22 U/C buys of prescriptions made in
exchange for money. Date opened: 12/3/01; date of arrest: 9/
18/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful
distribution of CS.
Dr. R--Phoenix--U/C obtained Percocet prescriptions after
telling the doctor they made her feel good. Date opened: 10/
26/99; date of arrest: 2/25/03; conviction date: pending;
charges: unlawful distribution of Percocet.
Dr. L--Hartford--wrote prescriptions to U/C, gave
controlled drugs to friends, wrote prescriptions at parties
all in exchange for money. Also abused drugs himself. Date
opened: 7/2/01; date of arrest: 12/20/01; conviction date: 2/
28/03; charges: Unlawful distribution of OxyContin.
Dr. P--Tampa--prescribed drugs to female U/C so she could
enhance her performance when she ``performed for men''. Date
opened: 12/2/02; date of arrest: 8/26/03; conviction date:
pending; charges: Unlawful distribution of Vicodin.
Dr. H--Albuquerque--prescribed large numbers of narcotics
to drug abusers in exchange for money. 10 deaths resulted
from his prescriptions. Date opened: 6/7/02; date of arrest:
6/5/03; conviction date: pending; charges: racketeering,
conspiracy to distribute, conspiracy to commit murder.
Dr. W--New York--Prescribed large quantities of narcotics
to a patient between 1992 and 2001. Patient died of overdose
of Dilaudid. Doctor submitted fraudulent bills to Medicare in
name of the patient and provided the patient with $700/month
in payback money during this period. Date opened: 1/31/03;
date of arrest: 6/24/03; conviction date: pending; charges:
conspiracy to distribute Hydromorphone.
Dr. G--Louisville--psychiatrist who wrote prescriptions in
names of friends who she fraudulently listed as patients.
Pre-signed prescriptions for office assistants to fill in and
dispense to certain patients. Date opened: 9/25/03; date of
arrest: 9/25/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful
prescribing of OxyContin & Hydrocodone.
Dr. K--San Francisco--dentist who prescribed narcotics for
addiction treatment. Date opened: 11/26/02; date of arrest:
12/02/02; case dismissed: 12/02/02 for further investigation;
charges: unlawful distribution.
Dr. S--Columbia--prescribed narcotics to drug addicts in
exchange for money. Member of the Caroline Pain Management
Clinic. Date opened: 4/2/00; date of arrest: 12/23/02;
conviction date: 2/17/04; charges: conspiracy to distribute
CS; acquiring CS by fraud.
Dr. B--Detroit--wrote prescriptions for money for over 3
years after his DEA registration was retired. Date opened: 2/
25/03; date of arrest: 5/7/03; conviction date: pending;
charges: unlawful prescribing of CS.
obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit/abuse of drugs
Dr. O--Buffalo--abused crack cocaine as well as
prescription drugs that he obtained through his DEA
registration. Date opened: 11/5/02; date of arrest: 7/28/03;
conviction date: 10/10/03; charges: acquiring CS by fraud.
Dr. P--Phoenix--used DEA registration to write
prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 9/10/01; date
of arrest: 10/23/02; conviction date: 11/25/02; charges:
acquiring CS by fraud (OxyContin).
Dr. S--Denver--used DEA registration to write prescriptions
for personal abuse. Date opened: 7/3/03; date of arrest: 6/
29/03; conviction date: pending; charges: acquiring CS by
fraud (Hydrocodone).
Dr. W--Phoenix--used DEA registration to write
prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 8/10/02; date
of arrest: 2/11/03; conviction date: pending; charges:
acquiring CS by fraud (Hydrocodone).
Dr. R--Scranton--used DEA registration to write fraudulent
prescriptions in other individual names for his own personal
abuse. Date opened: 4/29/03; date of arrest: 8/14/03;
conviction date: pending; charges: failure to maintain
records (in lieu of fraud charges).
Dr. K--St. Louis--arrested for possession of cocaine and
marijuana. Date opened: 5/5/03; date of arrest: 3/19/03; 4/
30/03; conviction date: pending; charges: possession of
cocaine & marijuana.
Dr. R (DVM)--Denver--used DEA registration to order
fentanyl Duragesic patches for personal abuse. Date opened:
12/16/02; date of arrest: 12/20/02; conviction date: 7/9/03;
charges: unlawful use of Fentanyl.
Dr. R--Utah--used DEA registration to fraudulently obtain
drugs from wholesalers and also wrote prescriptions in other
individuals' names. Date opened: 2/3/03; date of arrest: 3/
29/03; conviction date: 7/3/03; charges: acquiring CS by
fraud.
Dr. C--Denver--used DEA registration to write fraudulent
prescription for personal abuse. Date opened: 2/12/02; date
of arrest:
2/28/02; conviction date: 2/25/03; charges: acquiring CS by
fraud.
Dr. N--Phoenix--removed Hydrocodone from hospital for
personal abuse. Date opened: 1/29/01; date of arrest: 5/9/03;
conviction date: 8/11/03; charges: unlawful possession of CS
(Hydrocodone).
Dr. W--Cleveland--used DEA registration to purchase
controlled substances for self abuse. Also wrote fraudulent
prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 7/5/02; date
of arrest: 3/14/03; conviction date: 3/14/03; charges: theft
of CS (Alprazolam).
Dr. A--Puerto Rico--wrote prescriptions after losing state
license. Also health care fraud charges surrounding
prescriptions. Date opened: 6/26/03; date of arrest: 7/11/03;
conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of
CS.
Dr. C--Colorado Springs--diverted fentanyl from hospital
for personal abuse. Admitted to being addicted and performing
anesthesiology while under the influence. Falsified
dispensing records. Date opened: 6/20/02; date of arrest: 1/
28/03; conviction date: 10/16/03; charges: unlawful
possession of CS (Fentanyl).
Dr. A--Dallas--obtained morphine through fraudulent use of
another physician's DEA registration. Date opened: 12/19/02;
date of arrest: 12/30/02; conviction date: 4/24/03; charges:
acquiring CS by fraud (Morphine).
Dr. T--Greensboro--used hospital DEA registration to write
prescriptions in phony names for self abuse. Date opened: 4/
8/03; date of arrest: 7/17/03; conviction date: pending;
charges: acquiring CS by fraud.
Dr. J--Kansas City--diverted Fentanyl from hospital for
personal use and falsified patient records to cover up the
diversion. Date opened: 12/14/02; date of arrest: 4/1/03;
conviction date: 6/18/03; charges: unlawful possession of CS.
Dr. R--Kansas City--used DEA to fraudulently obtain
Hydrocodone for personal use. Date opened: 4/8/02; date of
arrest: 12/2/02; conviction date: 11/13/03; charges:
acquiring CS by fraud (Hydrocodone).
Point of Order
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The
amendment imposes additional duties.''
[[Page H5297]]
So I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination, namely the purpose for which certain controlled
substances were prescribed. The amendment therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay expenses for any United States contribution to
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of
the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is
identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and
had a debate on last year.
Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into
UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us
out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a
weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it
was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year
we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it.
Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which
was 25 percent of UNESCO's budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of
the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25
percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer
going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do
not get any benefits from it.
And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to
me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an
organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with
our educational system. It also attempts to control our education
through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too,
introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced,
but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these
programs.
Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy
they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the
American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is:
``The international education offers people a state of mind,
international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming
exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people
are saying about education in the various countries, including ours.
Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to
seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.'' Now, one
would think that is not too bad of an idea. ``The real world is not
this simple,'' so says UNESCO. ``International education has to
reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.''
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to
do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers
are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the
Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object
to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education,
and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have
the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be
left behind before we know it.
But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal
education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our
educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now,
but it will grow if we allow this to continue.
So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure
hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year,
so it surely would be permitted this year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when we had a vote on the floor, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) offered the amendment to not join UNESCO. I
supported the amendment. I did not believe that we should have joined
UNESCO. The decision was made by the Bush administration. Also, on that
vote, if my memory serves me, I was on the losing side. I think it may
have been Lantos v. Hyde. I voted with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), and we were on the losing side. History will have to check the
exact timing of that vote.
The bill includes $71.9 million for the U.S. share of funding for
membership in UNESCO, and I have had serious questions about UNESCO.
UNESCO was rife with corruption and problems. The Bush administration,
who wanted to join, has a very good and a very tough ambassador, a kind
of a no-nonsense person. I have met her and think highly of her. The
President announced 2 years ago at the United Nations, and I remember
seeing the speech, that the U.S. would rejoin UNESCO. The First Lady,
Mrs. Bush, addressed the UNESCO plenary session in Paris, France, last
year.
The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife
with corruption and anti-Western bias, and I think the current
ambassador, I have spoken to her, is going to make sure they do not go
back to the corruption and anti-Western bias. It was mismanaged, and
she has pledged that she would stay after that.
Since that time, they have undergone reforms and the current
leadership is committed. They say it stands for fundamental human
rights and democratic principles; and participation in the UNESCO, many
say, will allow us to be engaged as international partners in a number
of issues. This year, the U.S. was elected to the UNESCO legal
committee, the intergovernmental biotechnics committee, and other
committees.
I think now, although I do tend to agree with the gentleman, I think
it is a fact and I think he raises some very, very valid points, but to
strike funding for UNESCO just after the Bush administration has
joined, just after President Bush's wife, Mrs. Bush, has spoken at a
plenary session, I think would send a wrong message. So I reluctantly
rise in opposition to the amendment out of respect to the Bush
administration, having been on the losing side.
But we are going to watch this. We are going to watch and see what
UNESCO does, and I am glad this issue was raised by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul). But in light of the vote on the floor and in light of
the Bush administration request and the President's speech, and in
light of the First Lady attending and addressing the plenary session, I
would ask defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and
conclude with another statement from a director of UNESCO, who further
explains exactly what they are up to. He said in June that ``the
program remains committed to changing children's values so they think
globally rather than in parochial national terms from their own
country's viewpoint''. So if we talk about an attack on national
sovereignty starting at the lowest level through an educational system,
it is right here.
The chairman, obviously, is not very enthusiastic about this. But my
job as a representative is not to follow what other people tell me. My
job is to read these bills and to know what they say
[[Page H5298]]
and to represent my district. Because somebody asks us to finance this
and our instincts tell us there is something very sinister about this,
I would say that that is not a very strong reason to oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--state
and local law enforcement assistance'' may be used in
contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1373).
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of
the House of today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise once again this evening to propose an amendment
similar in some respects to one I have proposed in the past and
different in others, that is to say, it is similar in that it does
this: It says we have a law on the books, it was passed in 1996, and
the law says that all States and localities therein are prevented from
impeding the flow of information to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. The successor agency is, of course, BICE. They are also
prevented by the law from actually stopping any information from coming
from the old INS and now BICE.
That is what the law says. It is there, on the books, and every
single time I offer this amendment the other side gets up and starts
arguing the law as to whether or not we should have the law, why it
should be in place, would we not be better off without a law? But that
is not the purpose of my amendment, of course, to repeal the law. It is
to enforce the law. That is all I ask.
We are a body that makes laws. We should, of course, also encourage
the enforcement of those laws or we should repeal them. That is what we
should be doing here. It is, I suggest, quite inappropriate in a way
for us to pass laws and then essentially tell the country and the
people out there that we should wink at them; pretend they do not
exist; pretend they are really not on the books, because enforcing them
would be problematic from certain standpoints, especially politically.
{time} 1945
Now, what kind of message does that send every time we do this? But
every time there is a vote against my amendment, that is essentially
what we are saying, that even though we have laws on the books, we will
ignore them.
My amendment is designed to prevent those local governments from
obtaining SCAAP funding if they violate the law. That is it. If they
are in line with the law, doing what the law requires of them to do, no
problem. Presently, the law does not have any sort of mechanism that
would suggest we are enforcing it. There is no penalty, and so we have
got cities, counties, that are in fact violating the law. They are
doing that with impunity. We should not allow that to continue. We
should either repeal the law if we do not like it, or we should have
some sort of mechanism to enforce it.
I have proposed time and time again that we should try and enforce
the law. That is all this amendment does.
If State and local governments violate the Federal law and pass
sanctuary policies that encourage illegal aliens to come here, why
should any American taxpayer be asked to absorb these costs? That is
what we are doing. SCAAP funds are funds that we provide to cities and
counties for the purpose of reimbursing them for the costs of keeping
people in their prisons who are here illegally. They are illegal
aliens, and there are costs involved.
On the one hand, we have counties submitting bills to the Federal
Government for the incarceration of some of these folks, but on the
other hand refusing to provide that information to the Bureau of
Immigration Control and Enforcement, BICE. They want the money for what
they say they are putting out for enforcement of the law, but then they
refuse to actually give that information to BICE. It is not a situation
that is sustainable and certainly not one that we should countenance.
We should at least say if you are not going to abide by the law of the
land that requires you to provide this information, you cannot get the
money from the SCAAP funds. That is all it is.
Again, I know we are going to get into this argument about whether or
not we should have the law on the books. That is a different argument.
Let us just argue whether or not once we have the law on the books we
should not try to enforce it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) for 10 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A similar amendment was offered on DHS, and it failed by a vote of
148 to 259, so we are back to exactly the same thing. SCAAP funds are
not available to States that violate current law, and the Justice
Department tells us the gentleman's amendment would have no impact.
I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. In the State of
Virginia, we have a program where our State police are basically
deputized to in essence enforce the immigration laws. But it is like
Don Quixote. So what I would recommend the gentleman to do, and I
mentioned this to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) earlier, the
gentleman and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and others ought to
sit down with the administration, with the Department of Justice and
also with the Department of Homeland Security and fashion a regulation
in that sense. I think there are other ways of doing this. I think you
are just sort of coming up against it. My sense may be wrong. Maybe the
148 will go to 152, I do not know.
But I think the gentleman really wants to be successful and do
something. However, the Department of Justice says the Tancredo
amendment would have no effect on those who receive SCAAP grants. I am
not going to take a lot more time, but I would urge the gentleman, and
I will be glad to help the gentleman set up a meeting with BICE and
with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice
to see how to do this. But since it does nothing and says nothing and
is in essence the same amendment I believe was offered on homeland
security, I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) defeated by
148 for and 259 against, for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment, and offer to work with the gentleman, BICE, and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) to set up a meeting.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for extending his offer in helping the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on his amendment.
I think the gentleman has made a very clear point about the Tancredo
amendment. I rise to oppose it because it is a law that is already in
force; but more importantly when it comes to local and State
governments and first responders and people dealing with homeland
security, it is threatening to deny them funds because of some
inadvertence that might occur as relates to Federal immigration laws.
[[Page H5299]]
We recognize what the laws are in this land. We recognize the
responsibilities of Federal law enforcement on immigration issues. But
if we begin to start cutting resources from local communities, we can
be assured that national security will be jeopardized, and that is what
the Tancredo amendment does. It makes communities less safe.
Let me say, for those of us who come from very diverse communities,
it is particularly difficult for the police to establish relationships
that are the foundation of successful police work if the impression is
that resources are going to be cut if they do not do the work of the
Federal Government. That means they are going to create an atmosphere
of fear and intimidation and an attitude that anyone who has a
different surname or looks differently is under the scrutiny of local
law officials.
I would hope that this amendment would not be supported, and of
course recognize that in the exploitation possibilities you also have
the potential of criminals exploiting the fear of immigrants by forcing
local law enforcement authorities to be immigration officials. I would
hope that this amendment would not be supported. It has been defeated,
as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said earlier, earlier in the
year, in the homeland security legislation.
I can tell Members it makes it very difficult for communities who are
working toward better relationships with our immigrant communities.
Might I say to my colleagues, this is not the way to enforce
immigration laws. The way to do it is to have real immigration reform
that will help secure the homeland and balance the rights of
individuals within this country. I think we can do that by not having
this amendment which then would further divide Federal and local
officials by cutting funds which are so desperately needed for homeland
security.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Tom Tancredo's
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for
FY2005. The effect of this amendment would be to enact a provision from
the CLEAR Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate counterpart (S. 1906). These
bills compel State and local police officers to become Federal
immigration agents by denying them access to Federal funds they are
already receiving if they refuse these additional duties. Specifically,
the Tancredo amendment would deny funds to any State or local
government that limits disclosure of immigration status.
We count on State and local governments and law enforcement
authorities as first responders when national security is threatened.
Since 9/11, they have taken on significant new duties and are facing
dwindling resources. Further cutting their resources is not going to
help enhance national security, and, in fact, the Tancredo provision
could make our communities less safe.
In immigrant communities, it is particularly difficult for the police
to establish the relationships that are the foundations for successful
police work. Many immigrants come from countries in which people are
afraid of police, who may be corrupt or even violent, and the prospect
of being reported to the immigration service would be further reason
for distrusting the police.
In some cities, criminals have exploited the fear that immigrant
communities have of all law enforcement officials. For instance in
Durham, NC, thieves told their victims--in a community of migrant
workers and new immigrants--that if they called the police they would
be deported. Local police officers have found that people are being
robbed multiple times and are not reporting the crimes because of such
fear instilled by robbers. These immigrants are left vulnerable to
crimes of all sorts, not just robbery.
Many communities find it difficult financially to support a police
force with the personnel and equipment necessary to perform regular
police work. Having State and local police forces report immigration
status to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, would
be a misuse of these limited resources.
ICE also has limited resources. It does not have the resources it
needs to deport dangerous criminal aliens, prevent persons from
unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, and enforce
immigration laws in the interior of the country. Responding to every
State and local police officer's report of someone who appears to be an
illegal alien would prevent ICE from properly prioritizing its efforts.
Local police can and should report immigrants to the immigration
service in some situations. The decision to contact the immigration
service, however, should be a matter of police discretion.
I urge you to vote against this amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Tancredo amendment. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) stands
in front of us today, as he has in the past, as a strong voice to try
to gain the attention and support of Members of Congress towards a
problem that we refuse to deal with. This Congress is refusing to deal
with one of the greatest threats to the well-being of our people. In
California, our education system is going down. The health care
available to our people is being diluted and people are dying because
of this. Our criminal justice system is breaking down. People are being
murdered because we are not dealing with this issue. The issue, of
course, is illegal immigration. We have to do something about it.
In this case, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is simply
saying the cities or States that will not help us enforce the laws that
already exist, they should not be getting government money in the name
of that enforcement.
If we do not handle this situation, our people are going to pay an
even heavier price. I can see a day when the Social Security system
totally falls apart because we have not dealt with this issue. It is a
disgrace that Congress is refusing to act upon this. At least support
this issue which is very reasonable.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from
California that he left out in blaming immigrants the Chicago fire and
the San Francisco earthquake, which they probably were also responsible
for.
It is amazing in 2004 we continue this immigrant-bashing situation.
The fact of life is the gentleman read off a list of things that are
falling apart in California somehow because people are not being
reported or because local police departments are not engaging in
activities that local police departments do not want to engage in.
We had 24 discussion before, and it is a simple issue. Local law
enforcement does not want to be involved in this issue. Regardless of
what we like to see here and how much we would like to bash these
folks, local law enforcement does not want to do it. Let me try to say
once more why, because no one seems to be paying attention to this
issue.
Local law enforcement wants to be able to have a person, regardless
of their immigration status, come to them and report a crime, come to
them and participate in solving a crime. If they now feel that the
local police officer, the local sheriff, has been deputized, if you
will, as an immigration officer, we are never going to get any help
from the local community.
Now, one issue is the fact that we may have people in this country
who are not here with documents. That is one issue. But since they are
here, what are we going to do, ignore them, ignore their ability to
help us and solve a local crime, ignore their ability to help us be
involved in the community?
My God, we talk so much here about how much we want to help local law
enforcement and how we stand for them and how much money we want to
give them, and now we want to burden them with a situation that they, I
repeat for the last time, do not want to be involved with. This
amendment should be defeated for what it is, a Latino outreach program
that will fail miserably.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Once again I keep thinking when I hear these arguments that somehow
we have not gotten the point across of what exactly this is doing. I
wish we had a big sign that said: This is the law and this is my
amendment. This is the law that is on the books. This is not debatable
at this point, or at least it is not part of my amendment.
If the gentleman does not like the fact that we have a law on the
books saying that the people of the cities and counties should help, or
let me put it this way, there is a law that says that
[[Page H5300]]
they should not actively oppose our attempts to actually enforce
immigration law, that is what it is. It does not require anything. It
does not require deputization of more people or to get them involved
with the actual immigration enforcement. It just says you cannot take
an action that prevents the flow of information or the acceptance of
information. That is it. That is the law that is on the books. What we
are trying to do is assess a penalty.
The idea that local law enforcement, they do not want this because
somehow people will not come forward, the reality is this, their task
is to enforce the law also. They take an oath to do that, just as we
do. Here we sit debating as to whether or not we should enforce a law
we have already passed. That is the bizarre nature of this debate. It
has nothing to do with immigrant bashing or any of the other stuff that
gets brought up in this discussion.
It has to do with whether or not the law on the books should be
enforced. It is a simple measure that should not be clouded with all of
the kind of rhetoric and epithets that are thrown around every time we
start to debate this. It is the law. Should we have it? If we should
not, let us repeal it. As long as it is there, let us enforce it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let us note we are not talking about
legal immigrants. Over a million people are permitted in this country
legally every year. We can be very proud of that. In fact, the people
most concerned about illegal immigration in this country are the
million legal immigrants every year who obey the rules and stand in
line and who we are slapping in the face by permitting millions of
illegals to come into our country.
Trying to blur the distinction between legal and illegal is not an
honest way of presenting the case. The bottom line is we are only
talking about illegal immigration. We are not talking about local
crime. I am not in favor of having the local judiciary to enforce
criminal matters that are made criminal by the Federal Government. I
am, however, in favor of the Federal Government presiding over its
constitutional authority and obligation to control immigration policy
in this country. And if States and cities want money from the Federal
Government concerning illegal immigration and the incarceration of
illegal immigrants, they will have to go along and enforce that Federal
law because immigration is the rightful authority of the Federal
Government.
{time} 2000
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just note this. We can make
light of the fire that has swept through Chicago and destroyed homes
and natural disasters. This is not a natural disaster that is befalling
our people, and it is not funny. The fact is our health care system is
breaking down in California and people are losing their lives. It is
breaking down in other parts of the country. Our criminal justice
system is breaking down. People are being murdered. Our citizens are
losing their lives because we refuse to deal will illegal immigration.
The Social Security System could fall apart in 10 years if this
illegal immigration continues to overwhelm us. What are we doing? Why
are we permitting our children to go into our educational institutions
to have a diluted education? This is ridiculous.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) 30 seconds.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California knows me
well and knows I was not being funny when I mentioned the fact that the
gentleman left out the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake.
My point was that the gentleman is blaming immigrants for everything
that is wrong in this country. The fact of life is that that is what we
do, and the fact of life is that sometimes we look at people who bash
immigrants on a daily basis, and then when an amendment comes before
us, we cannot believe that it is anything else. But more of the same,
which is immigrant bashing, that is what it is. That is what it looks
like, that is what it smells like, and that is how I see it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult issue, because I want to respond to
my friend, my colleague's advice and his willingness to work on this
issue, and that is a strong allure, because number one, I know he is a
gentleman of great integrity, and I do want to do more than just simply
make a statement to, as he said, be a Don Quixote. I do want to in fact
move this issue forward; and if that is the best way to do it, then
perhaps what I will do is withdraw this amendment, but I will do so
only after I once again state that it is important for this body to
make laws and then enforce them.
We call ourselves a Nation of laws ruled by law. There is only one
way we can actually prove that. It is to stop this ridiculous winking
at the laws we make. Enforce them or repeal them. That is all I ask,
and that is what I hope that we will do. And I will work with the
gentleman and take him up on his offer.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
amendment no. 6 offered by Mr. Farr
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Farr:
Insert before the short title at the end the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States
of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,
Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing
State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those
States.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved, and pursuant to the order
of the House today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very
straightforward. In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul
amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill from preventing States
that have medical marijuana laws from implementing them.
As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books they
can implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do
not have medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the
overarching Federal law.
This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from
prosecuting illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage
the use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of
drugs in children. This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This
amendment does not change the classification of marijuana. This
amendment is recognized as States' rights to oversee the medical scope
of practice of doctors in their States, to prescribe drugs as doctors
see as necessary for medical conditions.
Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's
medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole
country. Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling
barring Federal officials from prosecuting doctors for their
recommendations.
Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian
Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream
religious groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a when-
all-else-fails treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart
casual use of this drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely
circumscribed and regulated ways such as the States do.
Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters
are speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently
Vermont. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont, and Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws.
Because of these State laws, thousands of patients are able to
alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by State or
local authorities.
[[Page H5301]]
The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In the
past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of
marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained,
and acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating
symptoms, such as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with
serious illness.
Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people
support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national
polls show the support around 70 percent.
This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose of
marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's
medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands
of licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients.
This amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue
that it should be.
No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas
we trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States
Congress. We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines.
We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We
allow the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected
to Congress. We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow
States to license doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what
is best for their residents of that State. When it comes to health care
policy or palliative care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of
the United States have determined that it is appropriate public policy
to allow the use of marijuana as a prescribed treatment.
If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does
it not respect it with regard to medical marijuana?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government
from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the
DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting
in accordance with state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not
prevent the DEA from arresting individuals who are involved in
marijuana-related activities unconnected to medical use.
Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the
Federal Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their
own suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law?
I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement
and state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California.
On September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of
heavily armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike
Corral where the cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for
Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a medical marijuana hospice, is tended by
collective members. They destroyed 167 plants, which would have been
distributed--free of charge--to more than 200 seriously and terminally
ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did not resist, the agents
pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to the ground, and
handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents kept them
handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles to the
Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released
without being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the
Corral's over-night guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was
disabled by polio, and detained two other members, one with AIDS and a
caregiver. Pfeil happened to be sleeping when the raid occurred.
Despite the fact that her leg braces and crutches were in plain sight,
the agents demanded she stand, which she was unable to do with her
hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and she experienced chest
pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All this pain,
confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full knowledge and
consent of state and local authorities.
Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only
anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be
simply dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are
suffering. Just this morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example
of this. Talk show host Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live
with excruciating pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a
former Marine and decorated naval officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for
the White House drug czar's office, explained in this article that
marijuana is the ``only'' drug that allows him to function on a day-to-
day basis. Now if he is using marijuana with his doctor's advice and is
following state law, why on earth should we waste Federal resources
trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain? And taking it a
step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for him and is
following state law why should we take that medicine away from him by
interfering with the grower?
The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that
marijuana simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd
claim. First of all, both the Netherlands and Canada have
enacted medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies
in the Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical
marijuana laws that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their
patients. And in those states, hundreds of doctors have recommended
marijuana to thousands of patients.
Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic benefits
of marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Medicine conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National
Drug Policy. The principle investigator from the study said upon its
completion, ``We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in
which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even
stronger endorsement came from the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative
Law Judge Francis Young, after an exhaustive, 2-year study of
marijuana, called for its rescheduling on the grounds that ``marijuana,
in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active
substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60 years ago, that
marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in treatment.''
Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider
acceptance. It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association,
whose 2.6 million members care for the Nation's most seriously ill
patients; by the United Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest
religious denomination; by the New York and Rhode Island Medical
Societies; and by many other health care organizations. Other longtime
supporters of medical marijuana include the New England Journal of
Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health
Association.
Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses
Association, the New York State Medical Society, United Methodist
Church, the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue
because they hope to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course
that isn't the reason. These organizations support legal access to
marijuana for medical purposes because they know one simple fact: it
helps sick people.
Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support
medical marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that
the Federal Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just
one example, in July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to
the DEA for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research.
This is the same kind of license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals
applied for in England a few years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has
now concluded Phase III trials and is nearing market approval for its
marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years later--has not even bothered to deny
the University of Massachusetts' license. Of course, they have not
granted it, either. They have just let the application sit in limbo.
Antoher application to the Federal Government, requesting permission
to import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10
months. Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to
increase the drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal
goal seems to be to purposely to block research that would prove--or
disprove, once and for all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits.
But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research
were suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate
question: Should the Federal Government, over the course of the next
year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and caregivers who
are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own suffering
or the suffering of others?
Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that
passing it would send the wrong message to children. It would make
children think that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you
something. Children know how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing
seriously ill patients to use it will not change that. And associating
the use of marijuana with AIDS and chemotherapy is not likely to
increase its appeal. On the other hand, if you deny cancer, AIDS, and
MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to alleviate their pain--
while permitting the medical use of powerful addictive drugs like
vicodin and oxycontin--the only message you are sending to children is
that you are intellectually dishonest and completely lacking in
compassion.
The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no
increase in marijuana
[[Page H5302]]
use among teens. In fact, in my home state of California, teen use of
marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th graders, 44 percent among
9th graders, and 21 percent among 11th graders since the California
medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996. The same Institute of
Medicine study described earlier noted, ``there is no evidence that the
medical marijuana debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of the
risks associated with marijuana use.'' Listen closely today to hear
whether opponents of this amendment back their warning about sending
the wrong message to children with any evidence demonstrating that
medical use has caused a change in attitude about recreational use; I
doubt there will be any with any scientific weight.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on
scientific evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects
the grass roots demand and legislative will of nine of our United
States. It is time for Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of
this issue and adopt my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is
a bad amendment. It will be bad for the country.
Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to
the Department of Health and Human Services, more young people are now
in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other
legal drugs combined. The amendment does not address the problem of
marijuana abuse and possibly, perhaps probably, makes it worse by
sending a message to young people that there can be health benefits
from smoking marijuana.
In testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, the DEA
provided an example of how marijuana trafficking is occurring under the
guise of medicine. And there is so much more I could say, and we have
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) here and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose). This is not a good amendment. The message that
this sends to the young people is absolutely wrong. This was
overwhelmingly defeated the last time it came up. I urge defeat of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, today I call for a broad coalition of
my colleagues to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to H.R.
4754, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Over the past 8 years, 10 States have adopted laws that decriminalize
the use of marijuana for medical purposes. These States have passed
these laws to allow the use of marijuana to relieve intense pain that
accompanies several debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer,
multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. In seven of these States, such as my
own State of California, these laws were adopted by a direct referendum
of the people.
The Federal Government, however, has made it nearly impossible for
these States to implement their own laws, the laws that the people
voted for. The DEA has conducted numerous raids on homes of medical
marijuana users, prosecuting patients who were using marijuana in
accordance with State law to relieve intense pain and other symptoms
caused by a variety of illnesses. Despite these State laws, the Justice
Department is working overtime to put sick people and those who would
help them in jail.
It is time for the Federal Government to respect the rights of
individual States to determine their own health and criminal justice
policies on this matter. A growing movement of Americans from
conservative to liberal is calling for the Federal Government to keep
its hands off the States that wish to allow their citizens to use
marijuana for medical purposes. In my State, the people have spoken
overwhelmingly. Both Republican and Democrat counties voted for medical
freedom. Our new Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has made it clear in
regard to the Federal Government's interference with California's
medical marijuana policy in his message to Washington, and what is it?
It is ``Hasta la vista, baby.'' Even more poignant, Tom McClintock,
Arnold's leading conservative opponent in the recent recall election,
has spoken out even more strongly against the Federal interference with
California's medical marijuana laws. The Governor of Maryland also, our
former Republican colleague, Robert Ehrlich, has signed Maryland's new
medical marijuana law and has lobbied Members of Congress on this
issue.
As a conservative, I am increasingly troubled by the federalization
of criminal law that has occurred in recent years. It seems that more
and more crimes are being declared to be Federal crimes. While
sometimes this is appropriate, for example in immigration law, which is
a federally mandated issue by our Constitution, but criminal justice
constitutionally is the domain of the State and local government. This
is especially true when the people of these many States determine by
their own vote the policy concerning this specific personal behavior.
It is time for the conservatives and liberals to join together in
calling for the Federal Government to keep its hands off. Liberals,
moderates, and conservatives should unite in order to protect the
freedom of our people. This is a freedom issue, and it is also a
humanitarian issue. We should make sure that the local people have a
right to determine if the doctors in their community, and that is what
we are talking about, the doctors are able to prescribe marijuana for
people who are suffering from AIDS and suffering from cancer and other
types of diseases. This is not fair, and it is not humane to go the
other way; and it is un-American to centralize this type of criminal
justice matter in the hands of Federal bureaucrats rather than the
people who vote in our specific communities.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that as a
physician before I came to Congress, medical marijuana is actually not
necessary because the active ingredient in medical marijuana is delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol. This is a compound that is readily available
not in a handful of States as medical marijuana is, but in every State
of the Union. It is legal today. It is called Marinol. It is a pill. It
is easy to take. And people who suffer from cancer, people who have
anorexia from chemotherapy, people who suffer from AIDS may use Marinol
today to their benefit.
Mr. Chairman, it just challenges the imagination. As a physician, I
wrote a lot of prescriptions for morphine for patients who were in
pain. I would have never recommended to a patient that they go home and
score some opium and smoke it. That would be an inappropriate way for
them to deliver the drug.
{time} 2015
This drug is delivered in a humane and compassionate way. It is
delivered in a way that deals with the symptoms it is designed to deal
with, and we do not explode the drug culture in this country by doing
so.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little
different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever
prescribes Marinol.
I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who
have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not
something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years
of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands
off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They
interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.
The States' rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but
we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has
brought this up.
But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to
have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about,
freedom of choice.
I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there
were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest
for a suspect that was committing terrorism.
[[Page H5303]]
Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we
could help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the
laws that they already have on the books.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, in 2001, the FDA approved the pain killer
OxyContin, knowing that it had a high probability of being diverted for
illicit use. We felt that the gain was worth the risk. The abuse,
unfortunately, of OxyContin is now a nationwide epidemic.
In spite of the fact that, unlike OxyContin, there are safe and
effective and legal alternatives to smoking pot for pain relief, we are
now considering the use of marijuana for its medical purposes.
The active ingredient, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)
pointed out, is readily available in an FDA-approved capsule. This pill
delivers THC, it does not carry the dangers inherent with smoking
marijuana, nor does it undermine the law enforcement efforts that fight
illegal drug use.
Mr. Chairman, the legalization of medical marijuana is simply the
first step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws that we
work hard to enforce today. We need to vote ``no'' on legalization of
marijuana and its use in America.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of the 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute, 100 percent opposition to this
amendment. I have listened to the arguments of my friends from Texas
and my friend from California in one case and my friend from California
in the other, and I have to say that their argument on States' rights
is a unique application as it relates to so-called ``medical
marijuana.'' But I have not yet heard a single bit of testimony dealing
with whether or not there is any medical value to the application of
marijuana in this case.
Now, the so-called phrase ``medical marijuana'' is a misnomer. It was
invented by the people who passed the proposition in California that,
frankly, hoodwinked the voters of California into voting in favor of
it. But I just want to run through a couple of things here.
The FDA looks at all sorts of prescription drugs and pharmacological
treatments, and they have looked at marijuana, and by and large, we
have deferred to the FDA on all these analyses. But, all of a sudden,
when it comes to so-called ``medical marijuana,'' the FDA is no longer
competent. But I do want to enter into the Record that the FDA, in
fact, did look at marijuana as a medical substance and found absolutely
no value whatsoever to its use.
Now, the FDA has, in fact, looked at Marinol, in which the active
ingredient in so-called ``medical marijuana'' is present, THC, and has
approved that for use in treating nausea and pain and the like, and it
is readily available by prescription, a true prescription, from a
doctor.
Let us dwell for a minute in California, which I am familiar with, on
this so-called ``medical marijuana'' and the facade that people go
through to obtain it.
First of all, the referendum requires that a doctor issue a so-called
prescription. However, the doctor refuses to issue a prescription on a
prescription form for so-called medical marijuana. They write it on a
piece of blank paper, because the doctors know that it is not a
prescription, it is a facade perpetrated upon the people of California
that this has any medical qualities whatsoever.
Now, my friend from Indiana is going to share with you the story of a
tragic occurrence in San Francisco, and I am not going to jump the gun
on him, because this is absolutely heartbreaking, what he is going to
tell you. But I do want to tell you, that incident is not singular in
nature.
The fact of the matter is we have children, young people across this
country, watching you and me and our peers across this country as it
relates to the use of so-called medical marijuana, and if you think for
one minute that they are going to turn a blind eye to our acquiescence,
that just because it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell
people ``No, you are not going to be able to smoke dope,'' just because
it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell people that, that we
are going to roll over and pass this prohibition on funds, just begs
the imagination about what leadership really constitutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has the
right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee, controlling time in
opposition to the amendment, has the right to close.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because my mother had glaucoma and we bought her marijuana because it
was a relief, and that was before this bill was passed in the State of
California.
I support this amendment because it respects State authority, because
the people in our State believe medical marijuana is a way to relieve
those suffering from cancer, from glaucoma, from AIDS, from spastic
disorders and other debilitating diseases.
This amendment will do only one thing: It will stop the Justice
Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State laws. It
changes no law.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this amendment so that
those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get the relief that
they need, and they can get it without fear of the Federal Government.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of
California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh
graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh
graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in
1996.
Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical
amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have
the enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this.
We have heard from the American Nursing Association, the United
Methodist Church, the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island
Medical Society, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar
Association, the American Public Health Association and the Episcopal
Church. They all support this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, do not let any Member kid
themselves; if you cannot enforce a Federal law, you do not have a
Federal law. This would eliminate our ability to enforce marijuana laws
in States that have passed this.
My friend from California alluded to a very sad case in the State of
California. When we as Members use phrases like ``medical marijuana''
and responsible officials imply that drugs like marijuana are medical,
tragedies like this happen.
Irma Perez, age 14, the late Irma Perez, was overdosing on Ecstasy.
Her friends had heard that marijuana was medical, and instead of
getting her to a doctor, where they said she would have been saved,
they gave her marijuana on top of her Ecstasy and she died.
When we have silly debates like this, quite frankly, we bear
responsibility. Yesterday, in Ohio, six people died, including a family
of four, two adults and two children, when a young person on marijuana
and alcohol collided into a truck that hit two other vehicles and
killed six people.
[[Page H5304]]
If you have medical marijuana laws, like has happened in a court case
in the State of Oregon, drug testing laws for truck drivers have been
thrown out. It is now being appealed higher, but it is not even clear
that you can be assured that our congressional drug testing law for
truck drivers will stand up, given the way the courts are interpreting
this.
In California, we have a doctor that has given 348 patients under
this medical marijuana, including for anxiety and restless leg
syndrome. In Oregon, we have a doctor who gave it to 4,000 people over
the last few years. We have another doctor in California who uses it,
we actually had this person at our hearing, for ADD and hyperactivity,
even though she admitted she has no evidence that it worked for those
things, but she felt it would make them feel better.
You either believe you have an FDA or you do not have an FDA. We hear
about all kinds of other things that FDA cracks down on. Either you
have a national FDA or you do not have an FDA.
Furthermore, just last week in Oakland, California, they pulled over
a group of guys with about 66 pounds of marijuana. They said it was for
medicinal purposes. They found where it was coming from, and they found
a warehouse. In this warehouse, they found millions of dollars of
marijuana where the people started fleeing, and then these advocates of
medical marijuana in California said, Oh, it was so medical.
The person who owned the building had already been busted for
transporting illegal drugs. He had lost his license as a pawnbroker.
But, no, this was medical marijuana. Some estimate that up to 90
percent of the cases, this is the pro-medical marijuana cases, of
marijuana use in California, would be classified as medical.
That is why we have letters, and I will include these in the records,
from the Community Antidrug Coalition, and Dr. Dean, who coordinates
these efforts, says he opposes it; the Fraternal Order of Police; the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America, who plead on behalf of the drug
treatment and prevention groups in America to oppose this; the Drug-
Free America Foundation; and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is
concerned that they will not be able to enforce any drug laws if we do
not allow the Federal Government to enforce.
We need to defeat this amendment because it is the wrong message to
our youth, it is the wrong message to our law enforcement, it is the
wrong message to our drug treatment people, it is the wrong message to
the people in the streets of their neighborhoods trying to reclaim
their often crime-ridden neighborhoods from drug dealers and addicts in
their areas, and it is, quite frankly, unconstitutional.
We fought a Civil War over nullification. States do not have the
right. If we can have States nullify an existing Federal law, then on
what grounds can this not happen under the same precedent, a lack of
enforcement on environmental laws, of civil rights laws, of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, of any law? Because once a State can
nullify a Federal law by saying, We cannot enforce it, you do not have
a Federal system.
This is an amendment fraught with difficulties and should be
overwhelmingly defeated by both sides for a multitude of reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letters referred to
earlier in my statement.
Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America,
Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2004.
Hon. Mark Souder,
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members
that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)
represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose an
amendment to be offered by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey
(D-NY) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agencies FY 2005 Appropriations bill which would effectively
prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to use of
``medical'' marijuana. I strongly urge you to oppose this
amendment not only because marijuana is an illegal, addictive
Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value, but also because
this sends the entirely wrong message to the youth of
America.
Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely
abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment
Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment
cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that
the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly
related to its perception of harm or risk by the user.
Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong
message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous.
Congressman Hinchey's amendment goes even further by removing
the ability of law enforcement officials to enforce Federal
law. The efforts of the drug legalization movement, to
promote the myth of ``medical'' marijuana and to stifle the
efforts of law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law
severely dilutes the prevention efforts that community anti-
drug coalitions across America are undertaking to communicate
marijuana is dangerous, it has serious consequences, and is
illegal.
Congressman Hinchey's amendment is offered under the guise
of compassion towards seriously ill patients, when in reality
it is a ``Trojan horse'' to legalize marijuana. To date, the
FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in
smoked marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I
controlled substance. Furthermore, in the States that have
legalized marijuana for so-called ``medicinal'' purposes,
seriously ill, elderly patients are not the only patients
receiving marijuana--children are also. At a hearing before
your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, Dr. Claudia Jensen, of Ventura, California,
testified that she prescribes marijuana as medicine for
adolescents under her care who have been diagnosed with
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In a policy statement from
the American Academy of Pediatrics stating their opposition
to the legalization of marijuana, they state that ``Any
change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to
adults, could effect the prevalence of use among
adolescents.'' What kind of a message are the youth of
America receiving when doctors willingly give children
marijuana--it tells children that marijuana is not a
dangerous drug.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to help us protect our
nation's youth and oppose any and all amendments limiting the
enforcement of the Federal law pertaining to marijuana use.
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely,
Arthur T. Dean,
Major General, U.S. Army, Retired,
Chairman and CEO.
____
Grand Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, July 6, 2004.
Hon. Mark Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the membership
of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our strong
opposition to an amendment which may be offered to H.R. 4754,
the appropriations measure for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary, which is scheduled to be
considered on the House floor this week. The amendment, which
was offered last year by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey
(D-NY), would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law
with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide
penalties for the use of the drug for so-called ``medical''
reasons.
In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective
enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of
marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the
use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes,
including violent crimes and crimes against property, which
go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking. Federal
investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt
larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the
State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for
precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the Sate of
Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency
marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin on many
of our nation's streets.
Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant
disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local
law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the
country. On behalf of the more than 318,000 members of the
Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of
any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact
me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington
office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
Partnership for a
Drug-Free America,
New York, NY, July 7, 2004.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to express our opposition
to an amendment being proposed to the Commerce, Justice,
State FY 2005 appropriations bill, scheduled for
consideration today. Congressman Maurice Hinchey is proposing
an amendment that again seeks to prohibit the enforcement of
[[Page H5305]]
federal law pertaining to marijuana in states that have
decriminalized the use of marijuana for medicinal
application. The proposed amendment is likely to have the
unintended effect of handicapping federal law enforcement
agents from enforcing all laws pertaining to marijuana use
and trafficking. Therefore, we encourage you and members of
the committee to oppose this amendment.
The issue of medical applications of smoked marijuana is
one for the medical and scientific communities to evaluate.
As you know, state-based referenda on this issue are not
homegrown initiatives, but rather are being driven and
financed by a handful of national organizations that seek to
legalize marijuana and other drugs. The position of the
medical community is quite clear on this issue. The American
Medical Association, for example, calls for further adequate
and well-controlled studies of smoked THC for serious medical
conditions, but the AMA recommends that marijuana be retained
in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the
outcome of such studies.
The last thing we need to do is making marijuana more
available on the streets of America. Please ensure that
federal law enforcement officials can enforce federal laws
relevant to marijuana.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Pasierb,
President, Chief Executive Officer.
____
National Narcotic Officers'
Associations Coalition,
West Covina, CA, July 1, 2004.
Hon. Mark Souder,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Souder: I am writing on behalf of the forty
state narcotic officers associations and more than 60,000
state and local law enforcement officers that are represented
by the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition
(NNOAC) to offer our strong opposition to an amendment that
will be offered in the United States House of Representatives
that would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal
marijuana laws in states that do not provide penalties for
the use of what has been deemed ``medical'' marijuana.
As you know, despite opposition by the American Medical
Association and other credible medical and health
organizations, drug legalization activists have chosen to
seek the medicalization or legalization of marijuana by
relying on the emotions of local voters rather than science
based data and the recommendations of the medical community.
This reckless approach has resulted in several states
adopting medical marijuana laws and relying on public emotion
rather than science to approve crude, smoked marijuana for
medical use. This action has circumvented the patient
protections provided in the Pure Food and Drug Act, which
have served to keep Americans safe from dangerous or untested
remedies since it was enacted in 1906.
Because marijuana enforcement by Federal officials is now
the only effective enforcement of the marijuana laws in
several states where medical initiatives have all but
legalized the drug, the passage of this amendment would have
disastrous results. This enforcement of marijuana laws
provides a strong deterrent to the use of marijuana, which
also helps reduce the use of hard drugs and the resulting
property and violent crimes. Enforcement also sends a strong
message to our young people that marijuana use is dangerous
and unacceptable. And finally, law enforcement provides a
social stigma to marijuana use that helps to prevent the
normalization of drug use. Without this enforcement, many
people will be lured into believing that marijuana use is
safe and poses no threat of addiction.
Federal investigations of marijuana cultivators also serve
to disrupt larger drug trafficking organizations,
particularly in the state of California, where marijuana is
sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamine
into the state of Washington, which is a significant gateway
for high potency marijuana that can sell for the same price
as heroin. The HINCHEY Amendment threatens to cause a
significant disruptive effective on state and local law
enforcement of both drug laws and of other crimes affecting
public safety in states where it would apply.
The members of the NNOAC strongly encourage you and your
colleagues in the Congress to support their local law
enforcement officers, health-care workers, educators, and
community anti-drug activists, who are dedicated to working
towards safe drug free communities by vigorously opposing
this dangerous amendment. The passage of the HINCHEY
Amendment would have a catastrophic effect and would result
in increased drug use and related violence, marijuana related
DUI collisions, lost productivity and work place accidents.
Please accept the thanks of our 60,000 members for all that
you and your colleagues do to support law enforcement and to
help us keep this great nation safe and drug free.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Brooks,
President.
____
July 6, 2004.
Dear Representative: I have dedicated the past three
decades to fighting the war on drugs and as such, I am urging
you to oppose the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment because of
the staggering effect it will have on society.
I have helped form public policy in the United States'
campaign against drugs through participation in the White
House Conference for a Drug Free America, as a member of the
Governor's Drug Policy Task Force in Florida and as a board
member of DARE Florida (Drug Abuse Resistance Education.) I
presently reside in Rome while my husband serves as the
United States Ambassador to the Republic of Italy.
With this experience, I can tell you that drug legalization
efforts abound today in the United States with deceptive
campaigns that exploit the sick and dying. Medical excuse
marijuana is the most common tactic used by legalization
proponents. This new amendment intends to prohibit the U.S.
Justice Department (including the DEA) from interfering with
state medical excuse marijuana laws. If passed, the pro-drug
lobby will once again undercut the federal government.
In reference to using the medical marijuana excuse, there
has never been controversy about the use of purified
chemicals in marijuana to treat any illness; however,
marijuana cigarettes are not medicine. The false portrayal of
smoked marijuana as a helpful medicine has contributed to the
increased use of marijuana and other drugs by young people.
Sixty percent of youths in drug treatment today are there for
marijuana addiction.
In areas where medical excuse marijuana is legal, people
are toking up under the guise of treating conditions such as
premenstrual syndrome, athlete's foot and migraines. The
Institute of Medicine (IOM), found marijuana effective in
addressing symptoms of nausea, appetite loss, pain and
anxiety. However, the same report concluded that, ``smoked
marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic
medical condition.''
Our nation is under attack by extremely well-financed
groups, whose sole intention is to profit from drug
legalization. They don't care about civil liberties or our
nation's children. They only care about getting rich at the
cost of a deteriorated society. They frequently use
compassion for the sick and dying as one of their
manipulative tactics to normalize drug use. These groups
would like nothing more than to eliminate governmental
regulation. It is imperative that state government be
accountable to federal government, especially when it comes
to drug policy.
As a drug prevention and policy expert, caring mother and
grandmother, I urge you--do not vote for the Hinchey-
Rohrabacher amendment.
Sincerely,
Betty S. Sembler,
Founder and Chair,
Drug-Free America Foundation.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2004.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice would oppose
any amendment to appropriations legislation preventing the
Justice Department or the Drug Enforcement Administration
(``DEA'') from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act with
respect to marijuana either generally or in specified States.
Any such limitation would interfere with the protection of
public health and safety against marijuana, which is
dangerous to both users and non-users and is the most widely
abused illicit drug in America. Moreover, a provision
applying only to certain States would unfairly and
inappropriately prevent uniform enforcement of Federal law
nationwide.
Marijuana is a widespread health and social concern. More
young people are currently in treatment for marijuana
dependency than for alcohol and all other illegal drugs
combined, and mentions of marijuana use in emergency room
visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of
heroin. Marijuana also can have a dangerous impact on non-
users, as demonstrated by the problem of drugged driving.
Marijuana affects alertness, concentration, perception,
coordination, and reaction time--skills that are necessary
for safe driving. Use of marijuana and other illicit drugs
also comes at significant expense to society in terms of lost
productivity, public health care costs, and accidents.
Accordingly, the Justice Department and the DEA continue to
vigilantly enforce Federal laws against marijuana
trafficking. Any limitation on enforcement of the Controlled
Substances Act with respect to marijuana would jeopardize our
efforts to continue reducing youth drug use and to protect
the public.
The same considerations are important for persons who,
contrary to controlling Federal law, would use smoked
marijuana for purported medical purposes. States are free to
define criminal acts and impose corresponding penalties,
under State law, in the manner they see fit. However, it does
not follow that the absence of penalties in a particular
State for marijuana use in these circumstances ``legalizes''
conduct that remains clearly illegal under the Controlled
Substances Act. Moreover, this issue is not only one of legal
form; it also is a compelling problem of public health and
safety. Smoked marijuana has not been approved for use
[[Page H5306]]
under the rigorous Federal drug approval process conducted by
the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''), which prohibits
drugs from being sold or distributed in interstate
commerce as medicine unless they have been proven in sound
clinical studies to be both safe and effective for their
intended use. To date, no sound scientific study has shown
that smoking marijuana is safe and effective for any
disease or condition. The Institute of Medicine has
concluded that ``[t]here is little future in smoked
marijuana as a medically approved medication,'' and the
British Medical Association linked its use to greater risk
of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
The DEA, in conjunction with the FDA, has approved and
will continue to approve research into whether discrete
ingredients of marijuana can be adapted for medical use.
However, with respect to smoked marijuana, the clear
weight of evidence is that it is not medicine--it is
harmful.
Finally, any amendment that would restrict enforcement and
prosecution in certain specifically named States, but not in
others, would prevent the Department of Justice from
uniformly enforcing the law throughout the United States. As
a practical matter, residents of States listed in such an
amendment would be exempted from Federal enforcement and
persecution for cultivation, distribution, and use of
marijuana in certain circumstances, while residents of other
States would continue to face potential criminal liability
for precisely the same conduct. We also note that the
amendment would effectively establish a classification among
residents of different States with respect to the enforcement
of the Federal drug laws. Consequently, Federal persecution
of persons in non-covered States for marijuana-related drug
violations potentially could be subject to challenge under
the equal protection requirements of the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment, particularly in States that may enact
future medical marijuana laws that are not covered by the
language of this provision.
Again, the Department of Justice opposes any amendment
restricting enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. We
appreciate your continued support of our efforts to continue
meeting the goals of the President's strategy to reduce youth
drug use in America.
If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact us. The Office of Management and
Budget has advised that there is no objection to this report
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
William E. Moschella,
Assistant Attorney General.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered
by my colleagues Sam Farr, Dana Rohrabacher, Maurice Hinchey, and Ron
Paul, and I salute their courage in bringing it to the House floor.
This amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary Appropriations bill would prohibit the Justice Department
from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It
would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate
the suffering of their citizens.
Eleven states, including my home state of California, have adopted
medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by
a vote of the people. More than 70 percent of Americans support the
right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to
medical marijuana, including the American Academy of Family Physicians,
the American Bar Association, the American Nurses Association, the
American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council.
Religious denominations supporting legal access to medical marijuana
or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the
National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the
Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian
Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.
Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of
life for patient with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe
medical conditions.
In my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 20,000 people to
AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering
that accompanies this awful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some
of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and
nausea.
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been
commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study
found that medical marijuana ``would be advantageous'' in the treatment
of some diseases, and is ``potentially effective in treatment pain,
nausea, and anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.''
To fight the war on drug abuse effectively, we must get our
priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making criminals
of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step toward
controlling America's drug problem.
Again, I commend Mr. Farr, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Paul
for their leadership on this issue, which affects the health and well-
being of so many Americans.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farr/Rohrabacher/
Hinchey amendment, which will end federal raids on medical marijuana
patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending
its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its
medicinal importance and safety. Instead, federal penalties for all
marijuana use, regardless of purpose, includes up to a year in prison
for the possession of even small amounts.
But since 1996, eight states have enacted laws to allow very ill
patients to use medical marijuana in spite of federal law. The present
administration, however has sought to override such state statutes,
viewing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the same light
as the use of heroin or cocaine. In 2002, federal agents raided the Wo/
Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana or WAMM, an organization that
under California state law legally dispensed marijuana to patients
whose doctors had recommended it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five
percent of WAMM's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.
The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill
citizens, not arrest them. And states deserve to have the right to make
their own decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana. I strongly
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
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.
Ose) 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.
____________________