[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5348-H5383]
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}  1228


                     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 rose on Wednesday, July 
7, 2004, the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) had 
been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 57, 
line 18, through page 108, line 22.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to make an application under section 501 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861) for an order requiring the production of library 
     circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet 
     records, book sales records, or book customer lists.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a bipartisan amendment at the desk which is 
cosponsored by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  This amendment, which addresses section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, 
is supported by citizens across the ideological spectrum, from 
conservative to progressive. This amendment is a narrower version of 
H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act, a bill I introduced last 
year and which now has 145 bipartisan cosponsors.
  To date, 181 national and regional library, publishing, civil liberty 
and privacy groups have endorsed this legislation, including the 
American Library Association, the American Book Sellers Association and 
the NIA. In fact, book sellers are way on their way to securing 1 
million signatures on a petition drive on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Members of this House are well aware, in October 
2001, Congress hastily passed the USA Patriot Act. This Patriot Act 
significantly broadened the government's investigational powers. 
Unfortunately, given the speed with which the Congress passed the 
Patriot Act, it should come as little surprise that this new law has 
created consequences that many Members did not intend.
  Every Member of this body was appalled by the terrorist attack of 9/
11, and I know that we all are going to work together to do everything 
we can

[[Page H5349]]

to protect the American people from future attacks, but I am sure that 
I speak for the vast majority of the Members of this body when I say 
that while we fight terrorism vigorously, we must do it in a way that 
does not undermine the basic constitutional rights of the American 
people, what makes us a free country.

                              {time}  1230

  That is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, this concern about protecting constitutional rights 
while we fight terrorism is not an ideological issue. Again, on this 
point I agree with people who I often disagree with. Let me quote 
Republican majority leader, former leader Dick Armey, when he said, 
``Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order 
to deny the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?''
  I agree with Dick Armey. I agree with Newt Gingrich, who also voiced 
concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act. But also what we have are four 
State legislatures, including my own State of Vermont, 332 
municipalities all across the country, conservative, progressive, going 
on record in passing resolutions expressing their concerns about this 
or that aspect of the PATRIOT Act.
  Now, one of the areas of the PATRIOT Act that has received the most 
attention is section 215 as it relates to the government's ability to 
gain access to the files of America's libraries and bookstores. Mr. 
Chairman, under 215, government agents can go into a secret FISA court 
and get an order requiring that a library or bookstore turn over 
records that would tell them what innocent Americans are reading. They 
do this by informing the judge that they are doing an investigation on 
international terrorism, and having said that, a judge in the FISA 
court is obliged to give them a warrant to go into a library or into a 
bookstore so that they can determine the books that innocent Americans 
are reading. They do not need to have probable cause or specific 
information on an individual who is alleged to be a terrorist.
  Mr. Chairman, just so the Members of this House understand how broad 
this authority is, let me quote from an October 29, 2003, declassified 
memo from the FBI's general counsel to all field offices. The memo 
expressly states that a request under section 215 ``is not limited to 
the records of the target of a full investigation. The request must 
simply be sought for a full investigation. Thus, if the records 
relating to one person are relevant to the full investigation of 
another person, those records can be obtained, despite the fact that 
there is no open investigation of the person to whom the subject of the 
records pertain.''
  To make matters even worse, Mr. Chairman, all the proceedings are 
secret, so the innocent persons whose records are sought will not even 
know that his or her records have been seized.
  Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who are 
suggesting that if we pass this, the FBI and law enforcement officials 
will be unable to go into libraries and bookstores to track terrorists 
and that exempting libraries would ``create a terrorist safety zone.'' 
This is absolutely not the case, not the case. This amendment does not 
except libraries and book sellers from searches.
  The FBI will still have many legal tools at its disposal as it always 
has, including search warrants and criminal grand jury subpoenas to 
attain library and bookstore records.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to show the American 
people, yes, we are going to fight terrorism vigorously; but we are 
going to do it while we protect the constitutional rights of our 
people. Conservatives, progressive, moderates agree, let us pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
gentleman's amendment is an attempt to roll back part of the PATRIOT 
Act, which should not be done on an appropriations bill with 20 minutes 
on each side. This is a matter that the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ought to be holding hearings on and have an 
opportunity to take a look at it. The business records provision the 
gentleman wishes to amend sunsets at the end of 2005.
  I think it is a great opportunity that the Congress has oversight on 
this issue, and I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will be 
doing that aggressively, whereby the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) and others from both sides can come and testify; but the 
Committee on the Judiciary must be given an opportunity to review this 
policy, determine whether the gentleman's amendment is a good idea, 
whether it would create a potential safe haven for terrorists at 
libraries and address any of these issues particularly; and that is why 
the Congress legitimately wanted it to sunset.
  Finally, and I would tell the gentlemen on both sides, OMB's 
Statement of Administration Policy states if any amendment that would 
weaken the USA PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to the President 
for his signature, the bill would be vetoed.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, and let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) and let the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
really take a lot of time to bring the best constitutional authority 
together and look at this. That is the right way to go.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Otter), who has done a great job on this issue.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his 
leadership and for once again bringing this amendment before us.
  Last year I believe if we had this amendment before us when we had 
the Otter amendment and several others relative to the PATRIOT Act, we 
would have had and should have had at least 309 votes for this 
amendment as we did the Otter amendment.
  I would just like to speak to a couple of things. I know my office 
and several other offices have received calls regarding a veto threat 
on this amendment. This is the ninth such amendment that we have 
received a veto threat on.
  Well, I would tell you that if there is that much consideration, if 
there is that much concern on this bill as a whole, then maybe we ought 
to take the bill back to committee and reconsider the bill itself 
rather than just the amendment.
  There is no greater threat to this Nation in terms of terrorism than 
the drugs that are on our streets today. There is no greater threat and 
no greater form of terrorism against our children than the 
pornographers in this country, and there has been no greater threat in 
the past on a civil and law-abiding society than organized crime.
  Yet, rather than add ``domestic terrorism'' to this list, we have 
taken domestic terrorism and elevated it above those three elements 
with special laws. We continue to say we are doing the same thing with 
domestic terrorism as we have done with pornography, as we have done 
with drugs and as we have done with organized crime.
  Not so. Not so, Mr. Chairman, because what we have done with domestic 
terrorism is we have removed judicial oversight and that most important 
role that the judiciary plays--shining that bright constitutional light 
into the dark shadows of probable cause.
  And so I would like to join the gentleman from Vermont. I would like 
to join others who are prepared to say we think that these other acts 
of terrorism against our children and against our civil society as a 
whole are no less important to fight against than domestic terrorism, 
and, in fact, have probably taken, no, have taken, Mr. Chairman, many 
more lives than were lost on 9/11.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to 
respond.
  We just received a letter from the Justice Department, and I wanted 
to read it for the Members.
  It said, ``In anticipation of the U.S. House of Representatives' 
consideration of an amendment that would prevent the Justice Department 
from obtaining records from public libraries and book stores under 
section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, your staff has recently inquired 
about whether terrorists have ever utilized public library facilities 
to communicate with others about committing acts of terrorism. The 
short answer is `yes.' ''

[[Page H5350]]

  The letter continued: ``You should know that we have confirmed that, 
as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist 
group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided 
by a public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to 
communicate with his confederates. Beyond this we are unable to 
comment.''
  This letter is to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
Mr. Chairman; and I am providing it herewith for the Record.

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2004.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: In anticipation of the U.S. 
     House of Representatives' consideration of an amendment that 
     would prevent the Justice Department from obtaining records 
     from public libraries and bookstores under section 215 of the 
     USA PATRIOT Act, your staff has recently inquired about 
     whether terrorists have ever utilized public library 
     facilities to communicate with others about committing acts 
     of terrorism. The short answer is ``Yes.''
       You should know we have confirmed that, as recently as this 
     past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely 
     affiliated with al Qaeda used internet services provided by a 
     public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to 
     communicate with his confederates. Beyond this, we are unable 
     to comment.
       We hope this information is useful to you and your 
     colleagues as you consider amendments relating to the USA 
     Patriot Act.
           Sincerely,
                                             William E. Moschella,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, reasonable men and women can disagree, and hopefully 
disagree agreeably, and this is a situation where this is going to 
happen. I think convincing arguments can be made on each side of the 
issue. And I do not want to sound like I am knee-jerking responding to 
this, but should terrorists be able to use taxpayer-funded public 
library facilities to plot a major attack without fear they will be 
investigated by the FBI?
  I think that could come to play if this amendment is, in fact, 
enacted. As I understand my friend from Vermont, the amendment would 
exempt public libraries and book stores from section 215 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, which permits the FBI, after obtaining a Federal court 
order, and I repeat, after obtaining a Federal court order, to obtain 
documents and other records relevant to international terrorism and 
espionage cases.
  Now, there has been no abuse in this matter, Mr. Chairman. On 
September 18 of last year, the number of times to date that the Justice 
Department had utilized section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act relating to 
the production of business records was declassified, and at that time 
it was made known that the number of times section 215 had been used as 
of that date was zero. So, obviously, there is no abuse here.
  Furthermore, section 215, Mr. Chairman, provides for a thorough 
congressional oversight. Every 6 months the Attorney General is 
required to inform the Congress on the number of times agents have 
sought a court order under section 215, as well as the number of times 
its requests were granted, modified, or denied. No abuse at all on 
this. And I just believe we should vote down the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds before I yield 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to tell my friends that it 
is not accurate that under this amendment that the FBI cannot go into 
libraries and book stores. They sure can. They can get subpoenas. They 
can go to the grand jury. They can do it in the conventional way. We 
have no objection to that. But they cannot have a carte blanche, no 
probable cause to check on the reading records of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful that because of 
this war on the Islamic terrorists we do not destroy our own civil 
liberties. The PATRIOT Act was passed in great haste, and parts of it 
do exactly that.
  The gentleman from Virginia says this amendment should not be 
considered without hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary and given 
proper consideration, but the fact is there were no hearings before we 
passed the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was warm to the touch. No one 
read it before it passed this House. No one knew what was in it. The 
bill that came out of committee was not the bill considered by the 
House. So that is where the original flaw lies.
  We should now pass this amendment not to make libraries an exempt 
zone. As the sponsor, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), said, 
police will still be able to obtain records, so long as they can 
justify their actions based on probable cause. What is the difference 
if this amendment passes? The difference is between good police work 
and a fishing expedition.
  Do we want the government rummaging through the records of average 
Americans without reason, or do we want to insist at the very least 
that searches be based on probable cause? That is the issue. That is 
the issue: probable cause.
  The Supreme Court of the United States, the Rehnquist court, gave a 
rap in the teeth to the administration last week for claiming powers 
that no executive in an English-speaking society has claimed since 
before Magna Carta. We do not want tyranny. We do not want tyranny.
  This amendment is designed to say you can read without being afraid 
the government will someday reveal what you are reading. We do not want 
the chilling effect on free speech. If there is a real reason, if the 
government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to 
a court and get a search warrant, show probable cause. That is the way 
it worked for 200 years. It worked against the Nazis in World War II, 
it worked in the Civil War, and it will work today. We need not 
surrender fundamental liberty, and we should not.
  That is what this amendment is about, and that is why we should urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have 70 constituents who lost their rights on September 11; and to 
hear this debate, I am not sure we seem to care about that. Something 
told me on September 11 that we had received a wake-up call from hell, 
and that wake-up call from hell indicated we have to detect and 
prevent, because the old Cold War philosophy of contain and react and 
mutually assured destruction went out the window.

                              {time}  1245

  On an appropriations bill, we are trying to amend the PATRIOT Act 
because some librarians find it offensive that we may want to go in and 
find out who a terrorist talks with when they use a computer, and we 
are going to have another amendment that basically says we need to tell 
them first that we think they are a terrorist.
  If we are going to detect and prevent, we have to break into these 
cells, and the only alternative left if we see this amendment pass is 
that we would then have to go before a grand jury and state our case, 
without probable cause, I might add, but state our case when we are 
talking about significant national security issues. We may be talking 
about a chemical weapon, a nuclear weapon. We may be talking about a 
biological agent. We may be talking about breaking into a cell to 
prevent that, and yet we are going to be told now we need to go before 
a grand jury to do the same things we can do in ordinary criminal 
cases.
  I am amazed beyond comprehension at the lack of recognition that it 
is not a question of if; it is a question of when, where, and what 
magnitude we are going to have to face these kinds of attacks.
  And I know what is going to happen when these attacks happen. There 
will be Members coming back to the floor saying how come the CIA did 
not know? How come our intelligence community did not know? Why did 
they fail us again? And we are going to tie their hands behind their 
backs anyway and say we have to let a terrorist know first before we 
break into a terrorist cell.

[[Page H5351]]

  The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) can throw his hands any way 
he wants, but the bottom line is we are at war with terrorists and we 
want to break into those cells and detect what is going on; and we sure 
as hell do not want to tell them we're coming.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Let me first say I am troubled by the comments of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays). To tell a New Yorker, to have a New Yorker 
hear that we somehow do not care for the victims of September 11 is 
really the cheapest kind of blow a Member can put on this House floor. 
I care and everybody else cares.
  But in the process of caring for the victims of September 11, no one 
said we were supposed to throw away the Constitution of this country. 
If in fact we were attacked, as some people would propose, because we 
are different, if in fact we were attacked because we are a great 
democracy, if in fact as some people propose we were attacked because 
people hate our freedom and hate our way of life, then the one thing we 
have to make sure in defending ourselves and getting the bad guys is we 
do not harm the good guys and throw away the Constitution. That would 
be the biggest victory for the terrorists.
  I know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is not 
listening to us now, but I personally take great offense to the fact; 
and I am glad that the gentleman from Connecticut is now listening 
because I think that was a low blow. I knew people that died there. I 
was friends with people who died there. We all are. Everybody in this 
country became a New Yorker that day. That is a fact of life. From 
Oklahoma to Portland, Oregon to Miami, Florida, everybody became an 
American and a New Yorker that day; so do not mix one with the other.
  The fact of life is that we are talking here about a very difficult 
situation. The FBI still has the right under the gentleman's amendment 
to look at what terrorists are reading and at what terrorists are 
doing. We want them to do that. We want them to do that. That is why we 
support the FBI's efforts. But what somebody else is reading which has 
nothing to do with terrorists, with an opportunity now to invade our 
privacy like we have never seen before in this country, that is not 
what this argument is about, and it should not be mixed that way. I 
think it is offensive to some of us who believe we can defend our 
country and protect our Constitution to be reminded every day that if 
we question this policy and if we question the PATRIOT Act, we are 
somehow un-American and not patriotic enough. No one should ever 
question us. I never question anybody's patriotism or their love for 
this country.
  Now there is traveling around the possible threat of a veto. If our 
President wants to veto this bill that funds the FBI's effort against 
terrorism, that funds the embassy security for our men and women who 
work overseas, that funds our war on drugs, that continues like in the 
homeland security bill, our fight on terrorism and the protection of 
our liberty and our system, let him veto it. Let the President explain 
to the American people that he vetoed it because the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wanted to make one small change.
  My friends, the PATRIOT Act, and I must commend the leaders of this 
House, they are good at taking a bill that does just the opposite and 
calling it something that it is not. The PATRIOT Act is everything but 
the PATRIOT Act. It is probably the act that takes away a lot of our 
abilities to continue to be patriots, but that is another issue.
  This bill is what it is. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
just trying to make it better. But I think my most important point here 
today is we should be careful what we say and how we say it because 
this is not the time to divide the country; this is the time to simply 
unite it.
  Let me conclude my comments by reminding us of what one of our 
Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said: ``They that give up 
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety.'' That is our problem at the present moment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think one of the major issues, though, is this is something that 
should not be handled on the floor of the House in the heat of the 
moment with 20 minutes on each side. It is a serious issue.
  Secondly, I was one of the Members who supported the 9/11 Commission. 
Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on the 
Pentagon. I think instinctively, no matter which side Members are on, 
they would want to wait until the 9/11 Commission. I know some have 
been critical of the
9/11 Commission. I have not. I have been supportive of it. We would 
want to see what the 9/11 Commission said; did they think this was a 
problem. I am sure that they are looking at it. We have been in contact 
with the 9/11 Commission on the reorganization of the FBI, so there are 
two issues.
  We would want to wait to hear them, and we would also want to bring 
in the librarians, constitutional scholars, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and others to come and review with thoughtful 
consideration, rather than a heated debate with 20 minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. 
The PATRIOT Act is not designed to be a Draconian assault on our 
rights, despite the description some have given it. Rather, it is a 
necessary fool which allows for effective communication between law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies. Let me say that again: it is an 
effective communication tool between law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies.
  Those of us who have studied what went wrong on 9/11 came up with a 
very dramatic conclusion which was published in a joint report put out 
by the House and Senate which said the problem was communication, there 
was a wall that needed to be taken down; and in fact the PATRIOT Act 
helped accomplish this, and it was a useful legislative contribution by 
the United States Congress as the legislative body to help fight the 
war on terrorism.
  We have agencies that set forth every day in our country with the 
goal of keeping America safe. That is no small proposition these days. 
We have all read on the front page of the New York Times, the very New 
York Times the gentleman is referring to, that city we are all 
concerned about, the concerns about domestic attack, about right-now 
worries that there are things that should give us concern about our 
safety from terrorists, that their attention may very well be focused 
there. That has been reported on the front page of the New York Times.
  The PATRIOT Act makes the task of dealing with these people and these 
threats a lot easier, and I continue to support the PATRIOT Act, and 
those who are working behind the scenes with our national security 
organizations do too.
  We all know that no piece of legislation this body or any body 
produces is going to be perfect. We all know about unintended 
consequences. And so Congress has done something else. We have provided 
for oversight capability in case we got something wrong, and we have 
the capacity to investigate and correct any instances of misuse of the 
PATRIOT Act, just as we would in other cases where wrongdoing is 
alleged.
  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the 
chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be 
effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the 
Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do 
frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has 
concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related 
activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available 
to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have 
experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call 
us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 
1-877-858-9040. We will be happy to receive comments and exercise our 
congressional right to oversight as appropriate.
  If there are problems with the PATRIOT Act, fine. Let us fix them in 
the kind of way that the chairman has properly suggested. I think the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has

[[Page H5352]]

exactly described the right process that we should have questioning all 
the time whether we are getting it right, particularly in areas of our 
own rights; and I think debate is well warranted.
  But this amendment and the half-truths which have been perpetuated 
against the PATRIOT Act are not the answer.
  In closing, Members might be interested to know that we have not had 
any specific abuse complaints brought to our attention. Let me say that 
again: we have not had any specific abuse complaints brought to our 
attention. And on the contrary, we have had significant testimony that 
has shown utility of the PATRIOT Act. It is not unfair to say that the 
PATRIOT Act has been and is a vital weapon in the war on terrorism. I 
would say, in my judgment, that lives have been saved, terrorists have 
been disrupted, and our country is safer. I fully endorse the idea of 
oversight by Congress, I fully endorse a reporting system for any 
abuses, and I am happy to report I know of none, and I think I am in a 
position to report fairly on that. I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  (Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the Sanders amendment. Let me say that the problem of 9/11 
was not with what Americans were reading in the libraries. It is what 
the intelligence community and the FBI were not reading from its 
regional offices.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to rename this 
amendment and call it the ``partial restoration of the fourth 
amendment,'' and that is our attempt here. We are doing exactly what 
the gentleman early on suggested: this is oversight; this is our 
responsibility. This is the proper place to have the debate. It was the 
Congress that created the PATRIOT Act; it is the responsibility of the 
Congress to do something about it if it was a mistake. And it, indeed, 
was a mistake.
  I would like to think that the American people are with us entirely, 
and I know a large number already are with us on trying to straighten 
up some of the mess caused by the Patriot Act, but I would like to say 
that there is one basic principle that we should approach this with, 
something I approach all legislation with, and that is the principle of 
a free society is that we never have to sacrifice liberty in order to 
preserve it.
  The whole notion that the purpose of providing freedom and liberty to 
this country is that we have to give up some, I do not believe is 
necessary. It is never necessary to give up freedom to preserve 
freedom. I do think we made some serious mistakes. We made a mistake in 
passing the PATRIOT Act under conditions of an emergency and under the 
conditions of post-9/11. We did not do a very good job at Tora Bora. We 
failed to find the individuals responsible for 9/11 and we have not 
concentrated on the people who committed this crime. Instead, we have 
decided to invade and occupy a foreign country rather than protecting 
and providing security here, at home providing freedom for our people 
and more security for this country.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Sanders amendment which would make 
libraries and bookstores a sanctuary for terrorists. There are many 
misconceptions about the PATRIOT Act, but section 215 has received an 
unfair amount of criticism. Section 215 covers access to business 
records. Library records, among other types of business records, have 
always been accessible under this provision.

                              {time}  1300

  These records have been subject to subpoenas by grand juries for more 
than 30 years. For example, in 1997 a murder case in Florida allowed a 
grand jury to subpoena the records from the public libraries in Miami.
  Section 215 actually provides more protections than the subpoena 
powers of grand juries. First, this provision does not apply to 
ordinary citizens engaging in ordinary criminal activity. In order to 
conduct a search of records, the FBI must have a court order.
  Second, there are narrow restrictions on when such a record search 
may take place. It can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence 
information concerning a noncitizen of the United States or to obtain 
information relating to international terrorism or clandestine 
intelligence activities.
  Again, this type of record search is not available in ordinary crimes 
or even for domestic terrorism. Library records can provide a 
legitimate source of information on individuals planning terrorist 
attacks against us. If we exempt library and book store records from 
foreign intelligence investigations, then terrorists will know exactly 
how to hide what they are doing. If this amendment passes, terrorists 
will know that if they use computers at taxpayer-funded public 
libraries, the FBI would be powerless to get records of their terrorist 
activities. When drug dealers or crime syndicates use these computers, 
these very same computers, these records have always been available to 
grand juries. Why not the terrorist records as well?
  Mr. Chairman, finally, I would like to add that this is an issue that 
should be considered by the Committee on the Judiciary, not as an 
amendment to an appropriations bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, a hero of many.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my congratulations to the gentleman from 
Vermont for bringing this forward.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two ways that we can get the information from 
libraries, book stores, video stores, and that is through a regular 
criminal warrant and through a grand jury subpoena, all of which is 
frequently used. But doing it this way violates the fourth amendment, 
unreasonable searches and seizures; the fourteenth amendment, due 
process; the first amendment, freedom of speech; and the fifth 
amendment, due process.
  For those who think they can call the Department of Justice's hotline 
and get the information, this information is classified. They will not 
reveal to the Committee on the Judiciary whether they have used it and 
how much they have used it. We know that they have through an American 
Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, which in the course of the suit it came 
out that they use it, but they will not give this information.
  For those who want to suggest that the oversight by Congress will 
take care of the Sanders amendment, let me tell them the entire PATRIOT 
bill was substituted the night before it was unanimously reported from 
the House Committee on the Judiciary by the Department of Justice up in 
the Committee on Rules. So much for oversight by Congress. Support the 
Sanders amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the freedom 
to read amendment. It is imperative that we do all we can to protect 
our country against terrorism, but reinstating laws that allow the FBI 
to conduct searches on libraries with search warrants and criminal 
subpoenas would not jeopardize national security. It would merely 
protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's 
libraries free once again.
  But under the PATRIOT Act, the use of our local library is no longer 
free. It can cost us our civil liberties. And in the U.S. that makes it 
very expensive.
  We are talking about the basic right to inform oneself without the 
threat of the Federal Government looking over their shoulder for 
whatever reason it likes or analyzing their intellectual curiosity for 
whatever reason they want. This is a chilling thought in a country that 
calls itself the land of the free.
  The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We 
should

[[Page H5353]]

not need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to inform 
ourselves, but section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes us think it should 
be removed. I support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Freedom to Read 
amendment.
  This amendment would abolish section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Section 
215 gives the FBI unlimited power to examine our library records and 
book-store purchases--without providing any evidence that one is under 
suspicion of terrorism.
  The free library is one of America's great educational and cultural 
traditions, and a cornerstone of our communities. But under the PATRIOT 
Act, use of the local library is no longer free. It can cost you your 
civil liberties, and in the United States of America, that makes it 
very expensive.
  We aren't talking about flag burning here. We're talking about the 
basic right to inform yourself without the threat of the Federal 
Government looking over your shoulder for whatever reason it likes.
  When you are doing research in a library or browsing the bookshelves 
at Barnes and Noble, you shouldn't have to think twice about how your 
intellectual curiosity might be analyzed in a Federal investigation. 
This is a chilling thought in a country that calls itself the Land of 
the Free.
  The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We 
shouldn't need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to 
inform ourselves. But section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes you wonder.
  It's imperative that we do all we can to protect our country against 
terrorism.
  Reinstating laws that allow the FBI to conduct searches on library 
and bookstore records with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would 
not jeopardize national security. It would merely protect our 
constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free 
again.
  Support the Freedom to Read amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I have high regard for the gentleman from 
Vermont, my good friend, and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and 
I regret that I have to oppose their amendment. But I want to tell the 
Members why.
  Obviously the PATRIOT Act does suspend some constitutional liberties. 
I am one of those people who loves the Constitution and believes we 
should not tamper with it. The problem that we have is that on 9/11 we 
had over 3,000 of our fellow Americans killed by terrorists because we 
did not know in advance what was going to happen. This is not the kind 
of situation where we can wait and say, okay, we suspect something is 
going on, we go get a court order from a judge and say, we think this 
guy is going to do something, and we go get him because in the interim 
he may have killed 4-, 5-, or 10,000 people. We have to nail that son 
of a gun before the act takes place.
  So although some of our liberties have been temporarily suspended, 
the FBI told us yesterday, and many of us were at that meeting, that 
the PATRIOT Act has been very beneficial in stopping further terrorist 
attacks here in the United States of America.
  The PATRIOT Act expires in the year 2005, next year; so we will have 
a chance to review it again. It has to be renewed because it has a 
sunset provision because we are all concerned about the Constitution. 
But we are in a war against terrorism right now. We cannot wait for a 
terrorist attack to take place and then say, oh, my gosh, why did we 
not do something about it? We have to use every tool that is available 
to us to prevent that attack from taking place in the first place, 
because once it happens, then God help us all.
  So the FBI and the CIA and all of our intelligence people tell us 
right now the PATRIOT Act is a very valuable tool in preventing further 
terrorist attacks on America. We should not be tinkering with it right 
now. Next year we can review it, but right now in a war against 
terrorism, we were told yesterday that we may be in attacks this 
summer, and we have to do everything we can to prevent it. And that 
means do not mess with this thing right now, even though I love my good 
friend from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just rise today in strong support of 
this amendment and thank the sponsors, especially the gentleman from 
Vermont for his leadership on this issue. Last year the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) came to my district where hundreds came to 
express opposition to this provision of the very onerous legislation 
that we are talking about before us today. Under section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act, the FBI has the power to search for any tangible things, 
including books, records, papers, documents, and other items, in any 
location after showing minimal justification. This punishes all 
Americans and really has nothing to do with tracking down terrorists.
  This amendment would allow the FBI to follow the procedures already 
in current law to obtain warrants to retrieve records for terrorist-
related or criminal investigations. But come on. Families should not be 
afraid to check out children's books for fear that they may be 
investigated for collaborating with terrorists.
  This amendment would restore and protect the privacy which is 
afforded to us by our first amendment, the rights of library and book 
store patrons which were in place before the USA PATRIOT Act. Those 
that did not know this was written in in the dark of the night, this 
was written in, we now know. Today we have a chance to get back the 
rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, eliminating these authorities, as this 
amendment would do, would mean that we can get library records for run-
of-the-mill criminal investigations with a grand jury subpoena that 
does not require a court order or judicial review, and it would also 
mean that we would be eliminating or restricting section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act, and that would preclude the government from getting the 
identical library records as the run-of-the-mill investigation I 
mentioned earlier to protect national security interests of the United 
States. This is at best inconsistent with regard to law enforcement.
  Congress recognized this inconsistency and corrected it in the U.S. 
PATRIOT Act. For example, today by grand jury subpoena the government 
can obtain similar records, library or other business records, related 
to the crime of cattle rustling under Title 18 U.S.C. section 2316. But 
under this amendment we could not get identical records using a court 
order for terrorism-related information.
  Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act only applies to the foreign 
intelligence investigations and allows only for the collection of 
records for an investigation to protect against international terrorism 
or clandestine intelligence activities. This authority requires 
judicial review, whereas a grand jury subpoena for cattle rustling on 
the criminal side does not.
  By exempting library records from the business records authority 
under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, this amendment creates a safe 
haven for terrorists to communicate and do research on the next attack 
that is not created for cattle rustlers.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the freedom to read, and 
Americans' right to read and purchase books without fear of government 
monitoring has been wiped out, it has been erased, it has been undone 
by the passage of the PATRIOT Act. Congress must repeal this 
unconstitutional provision, and we must do it today with this 
amendment.
  The PATRIOT Act forces library users to self-censor their reading 
choices out of fear. Mr. Chairman, censorship is not what America is 
about. The existing law would make one believe that by reading a book, 
the 9/11 terrorists came into existence. The existing law would lead 
one to believe that books are the enemy. Let us not forget the book 
burnings in Germany. Books are only the enemy if we do not want our 
population to be educated.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, just a short time away from

[[Page H5354]]

the memorializing of the loss of over 3,000 of our brothers and sisters 
during 9/11, we stand on the floor to acknowledge our commitment in the 
war against terror and for homeland security. But not one single 
terrorist that perpetrated that heinous act was found in the libraries 
of America on 9/11. And so I rise to support this amendment on the 
simple premise that it reinstates legal standards for investigations of 
libraries and book stores which are part of the constitutional 
protection of the first amendment, and protectionss that were 
eliminated under the U.S. PATRIOT Act.
  I simply ask my colleagues to recognize that the war on terror does 
not require us to drop our constitutional rights at the door of this 
body or the courthouse. Let us stand for the balance between democracy 
and security and support this amendment and defeat the unconstitutional 
intrusion on our rights!

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders 
amendment. I voted for the PATRIOT Act, I voted for all the 
appropriations for the war against terror, I voted for all the 
intelligence appropriations, and will continue to do so. But I think we 
have to be careful. We have to carefully balance the war against terror 
with our personal freedoms.
  With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI gained the unprecedented 
power to search libraries and book-buying records without probable 
cause of any crime or intent to commit a crime. Furthermore, librarians 
and others who are required to turn over records are barred from 
informing anyone that the search has occurred or that records were 
given to the government. This means that average Americans could have 
their privacy violated wholesale without justification or proper 
judicial oversight.
  This amendment will not limit the ability of the FBI and the 
Department of Justice to fight terrorism. This amendment will ensure 
that library or bookstore records relating to an American who is not 
the subject of an investigation will not wind up in the government's 
hands without the benefit or protection of the courts.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, 9/11 was a great tragedy. An even greater 
tragedy is the destruction of our Bill of Rights.
  The PATRIOT Act gives the government the right to search library 
reading lists. Our government should not care what people are reading; 
it should care that our people can read. Fear passed the PATRIOT Act, 
and fear will destroy our democracy.
  When Francis Scott Key wrote that ``Star Spangled Banner,'' he raised 
a question: Does that star spangled banner yet wave, over the land of 
the free and the home of the brave? He made the connection between 
freedom and bravery, between courage and democracy.
  This is a time for America to have courage. Courage, America. 
Freedom, America. Liberty, America. Support the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Sanders-Otter amendment, which would help restore the privacy 
and first amendment rights of library and bookstore patrons.
  On the day the PATRIOT Act passed in this body, few Americans were 
aware of its harmful impact. Today, I can tell you Americans and my 
constituents are appalled at the emasculation of our Constitution.
  Section 215 granted authorities unprecedented powers to search or 
order a search of library and bookstore records without probable cause 
or the need for search warrants. This is absolutely unprecedented. 
Those rights to a search warrant, to probable cause, are in the United 
States Constitution. They were swept aside in the PATRIOT Act.
  We should make the commonsense changes that this amendment makes. I 
urge support of the Sanders-Otter amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we are 
swallowing camels and straining out gnats. We talked about the fact 
that you need probable cause under the PATRIOT Act. You do not need it 
under existing law. You can go to a grand jury under existing law and 
get this information, right now.
  I would submit that we are not thinking straight. We are at war with 
terrorists. We need to respond to what we most fear: A chemical, 
biological, or nuclear attack. Or even a conventional weapon used in a 
pretty horrific way, with dirty weapons, dirty nuclear material. That 
is a fact. I am not inventing something. I have had 50 hearings on 
this.
  The bottom line is, you remove this from the PATRIOT Act, and they 
can still do all the bad things they want. Under the PATRIOT Act, you 
have to go to the Justice Department, you have to go to FISA, and then 
you have to get a court order. I would submit it is a safer way.
  The advantage is you do not have to tell a whole lot of people you 
are doing it. You get the records of what they are reading, what they 
are talking about, and then know whether we need to act more strongly.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, in the Bush-CIA-created democracy in 
Iraq, they just adopted martial law. The human rights minister said it 
is just like the American PATRIOT Act.
  The Congress has tackled some unusual legislation recently. The 
Senate just voted to reaffirm that we actually support the Geneva 
Conventions, and today we are in the House debating no less than the 
freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment in our Constitution, 
freedoms that were compromised in a rush to judgment by this 
administration.
  They did not get in martial law here yet, but they have got it in 
mind. They want to have the government able to reach into our lives, no 
matter what we are doing, no matter what you read in the library. Do 
not buy a ticket to ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' on the Internet, because they 
will get your Internet records. They are going to get everything about 
your life, and they will continue to do it until we finally wind up 
with martial law.
  The amendment before the House would grant Americans the freedom to 
read books from the local library or your favorite bookstore, without 
the FBI looking over your shoulder.
  Yes, we are here to restore one of the founding principles of this 
Nation. Today, we have to legislate freedom. There is a strong 
possibility that Republicans will vote against the amendment and kill 
the right for an American to read without fear of snooping by the 
government
  There is every reason to believe that Americans will end this day not 
really knowing whether the book they just checked out of the library 
has placed them on the FBI watch list. Who is to say what books might 
get you placed under surveillance by the government.
  Maybe you like history and want to know about the people who led 
nations against us. That alone would prompt Attorney General John 
Ashcroft to consider you a subversive. And, you will never know.
  The so-called Patriot Act has made a patsy out of the first 
amendment. There is a secret court that can let the government peer 
into your private life. They can pry, snoop, spy, intrude, watch, poke 
around, and access your records, your life, without your knowledge, 
forget about consent.
  The Attorney General wants the power. He insists he must have the 
power to protect America from Americans, any American he deems shady. 
What's the threshold? Well, that's a secret and a moving target. Today, 
maybe John Ashcroft won't like Catcher in the Rye and consider you 
subversive if you check it out. Tomorrow, maybe it will be The Great 
Gatsby, or perhaps Germany's Secret Weapons of World War II, or The Da 
Vinci Code. There's no limit to what the Attorney General might 
consider subversive. There's no limit to the spying he can order. 
There's no limit on government intrusion in your life. There are, 
however, new limits, severe limits to what this country is all about--
freedom.
  Are there bad people out there? Of course there are. And there are 
effective laws available to the Attorney General and the FBI to

[[Page H5355]]

find these people. Every American does not need to be put under 
surveillance in order to protect America.
  If you let government break into any American's private life without 
a rational check and balance, a cold wind will blow across this Nation 
and make us less free and no less vulnerable. We can fight the war on 
terror without declaring war on freedom. We can keep America safe and 
keep America free.
  I urge the House to restore freedom to every American. I urge the 
House to pass the Freedom to Read Protection Act. If we are to remain 
the Land of the Free, we need to defend civil liberty as vigorously as 
we prosecute the war on terror.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. I am distressed by anybody in this 
body who suggests that any Member of this body is not going to do 
everything that he or she can to fight terrorism. We are all in that 
together. But in the process of fighting terrorism, it is imperative 
that this body maintain the basic constitutional rights which have made 
us a free country.
  There is nothing in this amendment which prohibits the FBI or the 
government from going into libraries or bookstores as quickly as they 
can when they have to. This legislation that we are supporting is 
supported by conservatives, by moderates, by progressives, by people 
who are fighting hard, not only against terrorism, but fighting hard to 
maintain the basic freedoms which make our country the envy of the 
world and a free Nation. And in the fight against terrorism, we have 
got to keep our eyes on two prizes, the terrorists and the United 
States Constitution.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition. The debate has been good, 
though; and I think it is good we have had it.
  Let me say, first, that the PATRIOT Act does not allow or authorize 
martial law. It is important we know that. It does not.
  Second, in the statement the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
made, it was inaccurate when he stated that grand jury subpoenas issued 
for business records, including library records, in ordinary criminal 
investigations are governed by a probable cause standard. That is not 
so. Rather, grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations are 
governed by a standard of relevance, the same standard that applies to 
the issuance of court orders for the production of business records in 
intelligence investigations pursuant to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
  So, really, you cannot just get down here and say this and say that, 
because we are moving people. People are listening back in their 
offices.
  Third, there has been a lot of talk about legal issues here. We have 
not been hit since 9/11. No one has died in an attack on this country 
since 9/11. We know that.
  We also know that al Qaeda, and frankly, Osama bin Laden lived in 
Sudan from 1991 to 1995 and nobody did a darn thing about it. Nobody 
did a thing about it. They could have picked him up several times, and 
they did nothing about it. But we know that Osama bin Laden and others 
want to bring about death and destruction and kill American citizens. 
We have seen the beheading of Nicholas Berg and others.
  Has the PATRIOT Act helped us and our safety? I believe it has, and 
based on briefings that other Members on both sides have had, they do 
believe that it has actually helped us and kept what took place at the 
Pentagon, in my area, and I agree with what the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) said, up in their area, where they have deep, deep 
concern. We know it does and has helped.
  Now, on this amendment, was Mr. Mueller, the Director of the FBI, and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) would agree, has been asked 
what he thinks of this amendment? Has he been asked if this amendment 
hurt their efforts with regard to cutting off al Qaeda and other groups 
from killing United States citizens?
  We see the letter that came from the Justice Department. I put it in 
the Record. It said, ``You should know,'' this was to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), ``we have confirmed that as 
recently as this past winter and spring,'' winter and spring, two times 
apparently, ``a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al 
Qaeda,'' the al Qaeda who did the 9/11, al Qaeda who did Tanzania, al 
Qaeda who did Nairobi, al Qaeda who did the USS Cole, al Qaeda who did 
the World Trade Center in 1993, that al Qaeda that ``used Internet 
services provided by a public library.''
  Now, this says in here to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) that in the winter and the spring somebody connected 
with al Qaeda used the Internet at a public library. If we can stop 
what took place in my area with regard to the Pentagon, then I want to 
stop that, because we have gone to enough funerals, and you all have 
gone to enough, and two of my children live in New York City, and I 
know how the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and those of you 
feel. It says they have used it.
  Lastly, will this create a safe haven? I do not know. Let us let the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
look at it.
  It comes to an end. The Congress had wisdom to bring it to a sunset 
in 2005. Have hearings been held? I would ask the gentleman, Have 
hearings been held on this issue by the Committee on the Judiciary? 
There have not been. I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I will not be 
at that 2 o'clock meeting we are going to have. The hearings have not 
been held.
  Since hearings have not been held, since the FBI has not been asked, 
since we have not been hit, I strongly urge Members on both sides, even 
though you have reservations and doubts, to vote down this amendment 
and allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to do their work and make sure 
that whatever they do is appropriate and constitutional and in the best 
interests of this country.
  Mr. Chairman. I urge members for a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, although I have expressed serious concerns 
about our government's ability to search library and book store 
records, I do not believe that the Sanders amendment is the proper 
vehicle for addressing this concern. I will reluctantly oppose it.
  The PATRIOT Act is a flawed law. It was passed just 7 weeks after 
September 11, 2001, without meaningful debate about how its new, wide-
ranging powers would impact civil liberties. The Act contains some 
important provisions, such as modernizing law enforcement tools. But it 
also contains some highly problematic provisions, such as those that 
potentially give law enforcement officials a license to go on fishing 
expeditions for personal information unrelated to terrorism.
  I believe we must carefully review the PATRIOT Act when it comes up 
for reauthorization next year. Congress should decide which provisions 
are necessary to win the war on terrorism, and which are unnecessarily 
harmful to civil liberties. This process should not be done ``on the 
fly'' in the middle of an election year, before we have an opportunity 
to understand the Act's full ramifications.
  That is why I also oppose any effort to make permanent the PATRIOT 
Act. We adopted this bill in a rush. We wisely included sunset 
provisions that kick-in after sufficient time has passed to allow us to 
carefully assess the effectiveness of the provisions and their impact 
on civil liberties. Let's not rush to make permanent any of the 
provisions without the careful review we initially envisioned.
  The responsible course of action is to revise the PATRIOT Act after 
we understand how best to improve it.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, the freedom to read what we want--it may not 
be the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about those basic, 
unalienable rights for which generations of American heroes have fought 
and died. The idea of a government controlling what we read is the 
stuff of history books and horror stories about tyrants and dictators. 
It is not something we expect to face here in America--the Land of the 
Free.
  That was before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 215 of 
that law has given Americans reason to wonder whether the government 
might be looking over their shoulders when they check out books and 
materials from their local library. It has dangerously undermined the 
people's confidence in their government and threatens the precious 
freedoms we enjoy under the First amendment.

[[Page H5356]]

  That's why I support this amendment today. I fully recognize the need 
to provide our law enforcement officers with the tools necessary to 
combat terrorism and keep Americans safe. However, security bought at 
the price of the freedoms on which our Nation was founded is no real 
security at all. Certain parts of the Patriot Act, including Section 
215, may have seemed understandable in the short term, but they are 
intolerable over time. We need to set things right before our precious 
constitutional rights are eroded beyond recognition.
  We sacrifice something much more dear than our physical safety when 
we fail to be diligent in defending our freedoms. Once lost, they 
seldom if ever are regained. And whether the tyranny that robs me of my 
liberties comes from abroad or starts here at home makes no difference. 
It is equally unwelcome. I am just as committed to protecting Americans 
from their own government's excesses as from the violence of foreign 
extremists.
  The degree to which that commitment has captured America's 
imagination and has found growing support here among my colleagues is 
one of the most gratifying experiences in my public life. A vote for 
this amendment is a vote to restore Americans' confidence in the 
ability of Congress to protect the freedoms they hold dear.
  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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) addresses a portion of the bill that has been passed in the 
reading. Does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent for its 
consideration at this point in the reading?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to its consideration at this point 
in the reading?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This amendment would take money from the 
United Nations and would put that $20 million in NIST, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, at a level that was recommended 
by the President.
  I am offering this amendment, taking money from the United Nations 
appropriations, international organizations and, because I am concerned 
about the additional money that the United Nations has taken and has in 
their possession from the Oil-for-Food program.
  I think this Congress should be very concerned about what has 
happened in the Oil-for-Food program. This particular line item 
appropriation was increased 19.4 percent above last year, even though 
there are reports that the U.N. kept $100 million of the Oil-for-Food 
money to pay for its own operating expenses. This money was intended to 
rebuild Iraq, but instead the American taxpayer is currently paying the 
tab.
  Also, the U.N. collected .8 percent of the Oil-for-Food transactions 
to pay for weapons inspections, but between 1999 and 2002, the U.N. 
collected $400 million for weapons inspection, even though no 
inspections took place.
  So that is where the $20 million would come from. It goes to increase 
the appropriation up to the President's request for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.
  You know, it is a simple amendment that I think is fair, that I would 
hope would be in order so that this body could consider how far we 
wanted to go increasing some of the appropriations to the United 
Nations, again by 19.4 percent at a time when it is reported that they 
have, in effect, confiscated $400 million for weapons inspections that 
they did not make; at a time when they have taken another $100 million 
off according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, to pay for 
their own administrative expenses.
  I think it is reasonable and appropriate that we send a signal to the 
United Nations that we are not going to have this dramatic 19.4 percent 
increase in those kind of appropriations, at a time when the United 
Nations has issued orders apparently to not release the background of 
the Oil-for-Food program, when countries that were involved in the Oil-
for-Food program such as Russia, such as France, such as some of the 
other countries that now have instructed their people not to release 
the information so that we can appropriately investigate what happened 
in the misuse of that Oil-for-Food program funds.
  Recently, both my Agriculture and International Relations Committees 
held hearings on the United Nation's Oil-for-Food (OFF) program 
scandal. That program taught us a lot about the United Nations' (UN) 
weaknesses and explain the actions of countries like France and Russia 
when they worked against us last year.
  The UN placed trade sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded 
Kuwait in 1991. By 1995, the sanctions were widely blamed for a 
developing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The United States and Britain 
realized that Iraq, which has the second largest oil reserves in the 
world, could trade oil for food and medicine. We pushed for UN Security 
Council Resolution 986, and the OFF program was created. If effective, 
it would have reduced the humanitarian impact of the sanctions while 
preventing Hussein from buying weapons.
  Unfortunately, Hussein cheated OFF and the UN didn't stop it. He 
managed to get his hands on at least $10 billion of OFF money. Other 
countries were complicit in helping him cheat. France and Russia 
demanded that we let Hussein design OFF. It allowed Hussein to pick the 
price for his oil, to pick his customers, and to control the people who 
audited him. Within a few years, the flawed program allowed Hussein to 
sell at low prices in exchange for kickbacks that were funneled into 
Swiss bank accounts. This was suspected at the time, but it was 
impossible to fix it. Fixing it would have required unanimous support 
of the Permanent Members of the Security Council, including France and 
Russia. At the time, these countries said that they wanted to end the 
sanctions completely. France, Russia, and China all had oil contracts 
with Iraq that would have been activated, resulting in huge benefits 
for these countries had the sanctions been removed.
  At the same time, UN bureaucrats in Iraq were slow to file reports 
and bring irregularities to the attention of the Security Council and 
its oversight committee. Furthermore, Iraq paid its UN auditors. The 
more trading they allowed, the more money the UN got. These 
arrangements have only come to light since Saddam Hussein's fall. There 
are reports that even the UN's head of the Oil-for-Food program, Benon 
Sevan, was on the take from Hussein.
  The United States and Britain have pushed for an audit to find out 
what happened. Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 
is heading a UN investigation. However, the UN is stonewalling. Sevan 
sent letters ordering UN offices to refuse to cooperate. Russia has 
asserted that it will not release any documents. And other UN 
bureaucrats have refused to share papers. I have sponsored legislation 
that would cut U.S. support for the UN if it doesn't cooperate.
  The real story here is that many countries make decisions based 
solely on what is good for their country, with no regard for the goals 
and ideals of the UN Charter. Certainly, this calls the Security 
Council's moral authority into question and degrades its capacity to 
respond appropriately to events. Is it any wonder that, under pressure 
from these countries, UN could not agree to support us in Iraq? And is 
it any wonder that at the first threat of danger, the UN pulled out? We 
need to carry out a full and thorough investigation and make changes if 
the United States is to continue with some degree of confidence.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, we can proceed to the point of order. I 
would hope that inasmuch as this amendment was included in the 
unanimous consent to be allowed to be considered, that we would allow 
my amendment to be considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to question the ruling of the chair on 
whether or not the amendment has been passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request to consider the amendment 
at this point was objected to. The amendment is not pending.

[[Page H5357]]

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. May I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I refer to the unanimous consent 
request that was made last night asking unanimous consent that during 
further consideration of this bill, H.R. 4754, that the following 
amendments be allowed to be offered, and my amendment is included in 
that list.
  The CHAIRMAN. That order of the House of yesterday did not waive the 
requirement that the amendment come at the appropriate place in the 
reading.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am not questioning the points 
of order against the amendment. I am questioning the ruling of the 
Chair that this amendment cannot be offered at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The portion of the bill adderssed by the gentleman's 
amendment has already been passed in the reading. Therefore, the 
gentleman would need unanimous consent to return to that portion of the 
bill without which, the amendment would be subject to a point of 
order..
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And I guess, Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I will 
accept the ruling of the Chair.


                  Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Akin

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

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Akin:
       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 in contravention of the provisions of subsections (e) 
     and (f) of section 301 of the United States Leadership 
     Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 
     (Public Law 108-25; 22 U.S.C. 7631(e) and (f)).

  The CHAIRMAN. All points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order 
of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and a 
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  About a year or so ago we passed the $15 billion AIDS package, and we 
did so because we believed in the principles of prevention coupled with 
treatment.
  Now, the amendment that I am offering here today is to make a 
crystal-clear understanding that the intention of the United States 
Congress and the American people is in regard to the distribution of 
this money.
  The amendment simply codifies existing law by ensuring that no 
taxpayer funds designated for this bill, which has to do with 
tuberculosis, malaria, as well as AIDS, may be used to promote or 
advocate the legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking, and that 
no funds may be given to any group or organization that does not have a 
policy that is explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
  We have received word that there are groups who actively promote 
prostitution on their Web site, that they have received U.S. tax 
dollars in the past, and that is why this language is important and why 
it must be enforced.
  If we subsidize any organization, we unavoidably enrich and empower 
all of the activities of that particular organization, and clearly it 
is not in the interest of our foreign policy to enrich or empower 
organizations that refuse to denounce prostitution and sex trafficking.
  Now, I probably should make this point very clear that, first of all, 
my amendment applies only to the $15 billion of AIDS money, and also, 
that this amendment in no way prevents the distribution of condoms or 
medications to prostitutes or women sold into the sex trade. It simply 
mandates that the organization distributing these items must have a 
statement opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. In fact, in 
paragraph (e) of the law, it says, ``Nothing in the preceding sentence 
shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of,'' and 
it goes on to the different types of medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, when the United States sends tax dollars to treat and 
prevent AIDS in Africa, we are telling women that we are interested in 
their well-being, and we must never confuse that message by financially 
supporting organizations that actually promote prostitution and sex 
trafficking.
  Now, this may be a little bit theoretical; sometimes we deal with 
statistics in this Chamber. But in my own experience, traveling to 
India, to Mumbai, we had a tour of the red light district, and we saw 
the people that were victims of the sex traffic trade. In fact, we saw 
their children, about two dozen of them. And one of the things that we 
were told is that when those children come, first of all, to this house 
where they can be finally treated decently, and they are told that they 
have a bed, when it comes nighttime, they crawl underneath the bed. 
They crawl under the bed because that is where their mother trained 
them to stay while she was making her living in the evenings.
  So we do not want to have any way that any of our policies could be 
construed with United States money for in any way endorsing or 
supporting any organization that is not explicitly willing to denounce 
the trafficking and the misuse of women and children in the sex trade.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, just for 30 seconds. This is a good 
amendment, and I strongly, strongly support it. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri for offering it.
  The exploitation of women is very common, and, unfortunately, a 
growing, growing problem. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Pitts) and others on this issue.
  So I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To be honest, there is some confusion around here as to where this 
amendment is going. I know that the chairman already said it is a good 
amendment, and I understand my colleague said he would accept the 
amendment. But we are just trying to figure out if, indeed, this 
amendment should be on this bill at all, or if it should be in the 
foreign operations bill.
  I would like to ask the chairman that question, if he feels this 
belongs here, or if he feels it belongs in the foreign operations bill. 
And secondly, if he understands, as I do, that this bill really speaks 
not to one section of our bill I guess, but to all sections, that if 
someone does not have a written policy, a policy, by the way, that no 
one is against in this House or should be against, that this would go 
into effect. In other words, this would not be the first time that 
there is some confusion on an amendment, and that is what we are trying 
to say.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we have been led to believe that only, as the 
gentleman said, applies to the section that he made clear earlier, only 
to that section dealing with HIV/AIDS. I personally, though, would make 
it apply to everything, because of the thought of the exploitation to 
women. But unfortunately, it just applies to that one very narrow 
section.
  I think it is appropriate on this bill, because we have extensive 
funding in this bill with regards to sexual trafficking. But 
unfortunately, it does just cover that narrow section with regard to 
HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the amendment extends 
the prohibition against all funds in this bill to assist any group or 
organization that does not have an explicit policy against prostitution 
or sex trafficking; again, something we are all in favor of getting rid 
of.
  The bill funds the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and 
the Judiciary. The question is why should we refuse to help a small 
manufacturing firm that seeks MEP assistance, for instance, because 
they do not have a written policy against prostitution? Why should we 
encumber COPS

[[Page H5358]]

funds to local police departments or tell the courts they cannot pay a 
court reporting organization that does not explicitly prohibit 
prostitution? What effect does this amendment have on scientific grants 
from NIST and contracts from NOAA?
  There are some who will question the motives of the opponents of this 
amendment and suggest that we do not fight strongly enough against 
prostitution and sex trafficking. I am just concerned that this will 
cast aspersions on us because we think this is an overbroad amendment 
with unintended consequences. I just wish, Mr. Chairman, that we would 
really take a closer look here in consultation with the sponsor, 
because this, I think, accomplishes or does much more than we think it 
does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Akin amendment which affirms, reaffirms existing U.S. policy of two 
of the most heinous practices known to humankind: sex trafficking and 
prostitution.
  It should be very clear that the Akin amendment reiterates that 
funding in this bill cannot be used to circumvent provisions already 
existing in law, Public Law 108-225. As with the existing law, the Akin 
amendment states that no taxpayer funds designated for HIV/AIDS 
prevention may be used to promote or to advocate the legalization of 
prostitution or sex trafficking, and that no funds may be given to any 
group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing 
prostitution or sex trafficking.
  As the author of both the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 
and the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2003, I believe that 
the U.S. should do everything in its power to combat and to eliminate 
human trafficking in prostitution.
  Those who advocate the legalization of prostitution, I believe, are 
doing a grave disservice to women and demeaning their dignity.

                              {time}  1345

  Individuals and groups seeking to receive U.S. assistance to fight 
AIDS who believe that the legalization of prostitution or they turn a 
blind eye to prostitution are part of the problem. They are not part of 
the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, the horrors of sex trafficking, which is indeed modern-
day slavery, and the ugliness of prostitution cannot be understated. 
The recently released ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' which was done 
pursuant to our Act, has pointed out that some 600,000 to 800,000 
people are trafficked every year across borders. I urge a ``yes'' vote 
for the Akin amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just make my last appeal to the gentleman. I think this may 
be an issue that people want to discuss; but it is certainly, from 
everything we can gather, not intended to be part of this bill. 
Secondly, it leaves incredible questions open. As I said before, anyone 
seeking a grant under this bill, this bill has many areas where you 
can, in fact, seek funding to do medical research, to do all kind of 
research, to contract with the government; and this is so open that 
nowhere else I think in our government do we say that you must first 
sign a document committing yourself to something before you can even be 
involved in receiving Federal dollars.
  There are laws that cover behavior, yes, that is true, fair housing, 
discrimination and so on. But this one, my God, there are people who 
have not even looked at this issue. And to suggest that if they do not 
have it down in writing, they have a policy that they have to present 
this policy, they cannot engage in research or engage in building or 
something else, it is totally out of left field to me. I really think 
this is overreaching. This is too broad, and I was really hoping that 
the chairman would see it that way and oppose it for the time being. I 
hope we could reconsider it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentlemen from Missouri, Mr. Akin.
  Not only is this amendment redundant and unnecessary, because the 
existing language is already contained in last year's Global HIV/AIDS 
bill, but this amendment is also an extension of a bad piece of public 
health policy.
  Mr. Chairman, of course we don't support the legalization of either 
of these practices, and we would never allow the taxpayers money to be 
used to advocate or support for their legalization.
  But to deny funding to an organization, any organization mind you, 
because it doesn't have a specific policy that is opposed to either of 
these practices is counterprodutive to achieving our long term goals of 
reducing the spread of the disease, and treating those already 
infected.
  How can an organization that is seeking to mitigate the risk of 
infection for sex workers reach out to these women when we require them 
to have an affirmative policy in place that would turn these very women 
away from receiving education and treatment for HIV/AIDS?
  It's not like the women who get involved in the sex trade are doing 
it as a matter of choice. They are doing it to survive. They are forced 
to sell their bodies to put food on the table for themselves and their 
families. For them, it is survival sex.
  Last year I traveled to Zambia on a Congressional Delegation, where I 
had the opportunity to meet some of these women at Chirundu, one of the 
border crossings into Zimbabwe.
  I can tell you, the women who live in the surrounding community at 
Chirundu are economically destitute with no employment opportunities, 
they are forced into the commercial sex industry to survive.
  What incentive will such a woman have to learn about how to protect 
herself from contracting HIV, or how to avoid spreading it, if every 
organization she turns to rejects the very basis of her situation, of 
her existence? How can she trust an organization that believes that 
prostitution is a choice for her?
  Just take a look at the case of Thailand. On Sunday the 15th 
International AIDS Conference will take place there, and I think we 
should take a look at how Thailand confronted its own HIV epidemic 
among its sex workers.
  The government wasn't saying one thing and doing another by 
proclaiming its opposition to the commercial sex industry.
  It was actively trying to reach out to sex workers and to make it 
easy for them to come into a health clinic, get information about HIV/
AIDS, get access to condoms, and mitigate their risk of getting, or 
further spreading the disease.
  Like the case in Thailand, we should be reaching out to these women, 
not turning them away. We should also be helping them to get an 
education, start a business, and hold down a job.
  The amendment we passed last year was a flawed piece of public 
policy, and by extending this policy, this amendment we are considering 
today is equally flawed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on this motion are postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Otter

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Otter:
       Insert before the short title at the end the following:

                 TITLE VIII--NOTICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS

       Sec. 801. Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``may have an adverse 
     result (as defined in section 2705)'' and inserting ``will 
     endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result 
     in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction of 
     or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a reasonable period'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``seven calendar days, 
     which period, upon application of the Attorney General, the 
     Deputy Attorney General, or an Associate Attorney General, 
     may thereafter be extended by the court for additional 
     periods of up to seven calendar days each if the court finds, 
     for each application, reasonable cause to believe that notice 
     of the execution of the warrant will endanger the life or 
     physical safety of an individual, result in flight from 
     prosecution, or result in the destruction of or tampering 
     with the evidence sought under the warrant.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page H5359]]

       ``(c) Reports.--(1) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney 
     General shall transmit to Congress and make public a report 
     concerning all requests for delays of notice, and for 
     extensions of delays of notice, with respect to warrants 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, with 
     respect to the preceding six-month period--
       ``(A) the total number of requests for delays of notice 
     with respect to warrants under subsection (b);
       ``(B) the total number of such requests granted or denied; 
     and
       ``(C) for each request for delayed notice that was granted, 
     the total number of applications for extensions of the delay 
     of notice and the total number of such extensions granted or 
     denied.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today on another amendment, we heard the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee mention that we should leave 
the PATRIOT Act and my amendments there up to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and up to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. Chairman, we did not leave the PATRIOT Act up to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, up to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and up 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as was discussed 
and has never been refuted. This PATRIOT Act that we have been having 
to deal with for the last 3 years was snuck in at the very last minute.
  So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who the chairman now wants to turn over 
the jurisdiction for the PATRIOT Act, never got a chance to take a 
final look at the actual PATRIOT Act itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that, I believe, 
renews an important balance between protecting our liberties and 
protecting our Nation. I understand that the language is subject to a 
point of order, and I am prepared to deal with that. However, this 
issue drives to the core of who we are, or who I hope we are as 
Americans. And I believe it is important to address today.
  The fourth amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and 
seizures by government came from a firsthand experience of our Founding 
Fathers. Then King George III called it what it really was, writs of 
assistance, and before that it was also mentioned in the Magna Carta.
  So what we have done with the PATRIOT Act and sneak-and-peek 
provisions of search warrants has destroyed many, many years of efforts 
by freedom fighters throughout the decades. This idea of individuality, 
that each person is created unique, is something unique to the United 
States and cannot and should not be taken away, especially not by its 
own government. If we cannot trust our own government to not make war 
on its own people, how can we trust this same government to make war 
with our enemies? That is why I am so concerned about the way we have 
expanded the power of government to do sneak-and-peek searches. The 
issue at hand is not when or where or how often these warrants may be 
executed or may be used; the fact that government has the power at all 
should be something of great concern to all of us.
  I do not doubt that the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that address 
sneak-and-peek were well intended. It is important to know that we are 
safe and secure within the borders of this country. Mr. Chairman, we 
cannot, we will not be safe in this country unless we are secure under 
the fourth amendment to the privacy of our own person and our own 
property.
  I understand that the sneak-and-peek warrants were used before the 
passage of the PATRIOT Act. We discussed that earlier. There were 
certain provisions which the authorities had to go through before they 
could simply waltz into somebody's home. By broadening the use of the 
sneak-and-peek warrants and making them the standard rather than the 
exception, the PATRIOT act threatens our liberties that were given us 
by our Creator and are now protected by the Constitution. That is why I 
am offering this amendment today.
  As Americans, I believe our fundamental belief that each of us is 
ultimately responsible for safeguarding ourselves. It is our obligation 
and our duty as citizens to this great Nation to see to it that we are 
secure in our own liberties, and it is our responsibility first and 
then the government's.
  We would be justifiably enraged if some individual or a group acted 
to destroy our Constitution, all at once to wipe away in one terrible 
moment the centuries of struggle and countless lives sacrificed to 
winning the liberties we hold so dear.
  It is equally important that we jealously guard against allowing our 
freedoms to be chipped away piece by piece before our eyes, that we do 
all we can to hold back those small, but insignificant, strokes of 
tyrannical erosion which can in time fell even the greatest of our 
institutions, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 
the United States.
  I am not the first to have these concerns. Those before me have said 
it more eloquently than I. James Madison recognized the importance of 
guarding our individual liberties with constant vigilance when he said: 
``Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more 
instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and 
silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden 
usurpations.''
  Ben Franklin was already quoted today. And Thomas Jefferson, 
cautioning us against relinquishing our inalienable rights to even a 
well-meaning government said: ``A freedom government is founded in 
jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which 
prescribes limited constitutions to bind those we are obliged to trust 
with power. So in questions of political power, speak to me not of 
confidence in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of 
the Constitution.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is the deepest root in our tree of liberty and 
that is the rights of individuals to be free to exercise under the 
fourth amendment and to be secure in their own homes and their own 
privacy. A vote for the people and not the government is a vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Idaho, of which I am a co-sponsor.
  The Fourth Amendment provides that ``The right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no 
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
the persons or things to be seized.''
  The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and 
seizures are put into practice, in part, by the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure. Rule 41 specifically requires the government to 
obtain a warrant before a search is conducted. It also requires that 
the government give notice to a person whose property was seized during 
a search, or from whose premises property was seized. And the Supreme 
Court has traditionally held that an officer must knock and announce 
his presence before serving a search warrant, absent exigent 
circumstances such as reasonable belief such notice would jeopardize 
life or limb, or result in destruction of evidence or escape of the 
person named in the warrant. Moreover, while delayed notice for 
searches of oral and wire communications are authorized by law under 
certain conditions, as a general rule, covert physical searches for 
physical evidence were not permitted prior to the PATRIOT Act.
  The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be 
searched to assert his or her Fourth Amendment rights by pointing out 
irregularities such as the police have the wrong address, or ensuring 
that only those areas specified are searched, if the area to be 
searched is a room in a house, that does not include the car in the 
garage.
  The so called ``sneak and peek'' secret search warrant provision 
allows law enforcement to conduct a secret search on a person's

[[Page H5360]]

premises or computer without notice. If they get the wrong house or 
business and it happens to be yours, you may never know about it. Or if 
the search is conducted improperly, but nothing incriminating is found, 
you may never know about it. Sneak and peek warrants provide no 
sanction for failure to notify the subject of the search or for 
unlawful activity if nobody is aware of it and if no incriminating 
evidence is found. Law enforcement personnel will need to validate a 
search only when property is seized and then delayed notice must be 
given. Meanwhile, the notice can be weeks or even months after the 
fact. And in that time period, several searches may have been conducted 
without any results or continuing justification.
  Moreover, this gives law enforcement officials access to someone's 
personal property and information without the person's knowledge. Law 
enforcement personnel can search through your drawers, go through your 
files including medical and financial records, read your diaries, and 
surf through computer websites you have visited, just to name a few 
invasive practices. The person conducting the search will have access 
to very private, very personal, information about you and your family, 
without your knowledge. And what if the government agent conducting the 
search happens to be your neighbor or someone you see at the store or 
at a PTA meeting? Without your knowledge, that person has continuing 
access to--and knows the most intimate of details about--your life. 
This level of privacy invasion is unjustifiable.
  Preventing terrorism has become a more urgent and necessary goal of 
law enforcement since the 9/11 tragedies. Yet, we don't want to 
accomplish for the terrorists something they could not accomplish 
themselves--reducing the rights, freedoms, and protections our system 
provides us all. The Otter amendment finds a working middle-ground that 
will satisfy our country's need for heightened security while at the 
same time ensuring that our freedoms and protections remain intact. The 
amendment limits the reasons for sneak and peek warrants to three 
specific circumstances, when notice would cause either the life or 
physical safety of a person to be put in danger, flight from 
prosecution, or the destruction of evidence. It also includes a seven-
day time limit for the delayed notice. This time limit creates a 
pattern of uniformity for those involved in law enforcement and is a 
reasonable period by which to inform the person subject to the warrant 
of the clandestine search. In the case where a court finds that notice 
of the warrant within the seven-day period will lead to one of the 
three enunciated circumstances, the amendment authorizes unlimited 
additional seven-day delays. This amendment encourages use of these 
warrants in appropriate circumstances, will prevent misuse of the 
practice, and ensures the protection of our civil liberties.
  Encouraging the judiciary to issue sneak and peek warrants without 
offering any meaningful guidance on their use will end in disaster. 
This amendment is unequivocally American. It recognizes the need to 
protect our country and our selves. It gives meaning to Section 213 of 
the PATRIOT Act within the parameters of our democracy so that it can 
be an effective tool rather than a wasted provision.
  Mr. Chairman, safeguarding the rights guaranteed to us by the 
Constitution is not a partisan issue. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
support of this essential legislation to protect the rights of all 
Americans.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's strong feelings 
and he makes a very powerful case, and I can see how passionate he is 
about it. I think this is one of those cases that ought to be done by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law constituting 
legislation in an appropriations 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.''
  This amendment directly amends existing law. I ask for a ruling from 
the Chair. I am certain that this will be an issue that will be 
discussed quite deeply by the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Idaho wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate what the good chairman 
has said relative to my amendment and its being out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


              Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title), the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. (a) For expenses necessary for enforcing 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 642 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373), $1,000,000.
       (b) The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Legal Activities--salaries and 
     expenses, general legal activities'' is hereby reduced by 
     $1,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of 
the House of yesterday, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to 
enforce existing Federal law that prohibits localities from refusing to 
allow their officers to report aliens who commit crimes to the 
immigration authorities.
  My amendment would provide funding for the Department of Justice to 
enforce section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
Responsibility Act of 1996. Section 642 of the act forbids localities 
from preventing their police officers from reporting immigration 
information to the Federal Government. However, some cities and 
counties have continued to refuse to allow their officers to provide 
information to the Federal Government, and that is in violation of 
Federal law.
  Without this information, the Federal immigration authorities cannot 
take steps to remove these criminal illegal aliens from American 
streets. Under these so-called ``sanctuary policies'' in certain cities 
and counties, the police cannot report the illegal aliens who commit 
crimes to the immigration authorities for deportation. As a result, 
taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien prisoners who are later 
released back on to the street.
  These sanctuary policies have disastrous consequence for future 
victims. Repeat offenses by criminal illegal aliens are preventable 
crimes. These offenders should have been removed from the United 
Nations as soon as their first crimes were discovered. Their prompt 
removal prevents future crimes. We can act to prevent crime by funding 
enforcement of section 462 by the Department of Justice.
  The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims held an 
oversight hearing on the public safety consequences of local 
immigration sanctuary policies on February 27, 2003. But despite that 
February 2003 hearing, sanctuary policies remain in place with 
disastrous consequences. Less than 4 months after that hearing in June 
of 2003, a 9-year-old girl was dragged from her San Jose home in broad 
daylight and was kidnapped, tortured, and raped over 3 days before 
finally being released by her assailant.
  According to press reports, the man arrested and charged with nine 
felony counts related to the terrifying abduction and sexual assault 
was an illegal alien who had already admitted a crime. Originally, the 
suspect was arraigned under the name Enrique Sosa Alvarez, but a 
fingerprint check identified him as David Montiel Cruz. Under the name 
Cruz, this man was previously convicted of auto theft. According to the 
San Jose Police Department's policy, section L7911 of the Line and 
Operations Procedure, officers may not ``initiate police action when 
the primary objective is directed towards discovering the alien status 
of a person.''
  Because the officer who investigated the previous auto theft could 
not ask about Mr. Cruz's immigration status, his hands were tied and he 
could not verify with the Federal Government

[[Page H5361]]

whether Mr. Cruz was allowed in the United States. We will never know 
if this crime against this 9-year-old girl could have been prevented if 
Federal law were enforced.
  My amendment would fund enforcement of section 642. This section does 
not require local authorities to report all immigration information 
they would uncover to the Federal immigration authorities, but rather 
it simply prohibits local authorities from having a blanket policy to 
refuse to communicate this information with the Federal Government.
  This is essential because in the example I just spoke of, the accused 
kidnapper and rapist never should have been in this country in the 
first place. We must not allow illegal aliens whose presence was never 
reported to Federal immigration authorities due to illegal sanctuary 
policies to continue to commit brutal crimes. We must not provide 
sanctuary to criminals.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), and I appreciate his work on this entire bill and other Members 
to encourage the Department of Justice to enforce the Federal law which 
prohibits localities from having sanctuary policies.
  I urge support for my amendment which funds enforcement of section 
642.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  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 support what the gentleman is trying to do, but what agency would 
get the money?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the agency that this amendment 
transfers to is the Department of Justice.
  Mr. WOLF. But this law is not enforced by the Department of Justice. 
This law is enforced by Department of Homeland Security.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's 
amendment provides $1 million to enforce two sections of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. However, the 
amendment does not specify what agency would receive this funding.
  Secondly, what agency would get this funding and be tasked with 
enforcing these immigration provisions? Enforcement of this section of 
the immigration law is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland 
Security. The Homeland Security Act specifically changed the 
responsibility from the Attorney General to the Department of Homeland 
Security. No agency funded in this bill has that responsibility. The 
gentleman should have done the amendment on the right bill as the other 
Members sought to do. So it just does not fit.
  Now, I would say, and I have offered the gentleman a number of times 
and I will do it again, that I think either the gentleman is trying to 
get something out to get a vote to see what happens, or he is trying to 
get it done. I would rather get it done, and I know that it is a 
problem. That is a problem even in my region and other regions.
  The way to do it is to bring the administration up, to bring the 
Justice Department up, bring the Department of Homeland Security up, 
and sit down and have them resolve the issue, and honey gets people 
more than a stick, and particularly this agency that the gentleman is 
amending the bill for the Justice Department is not the agency to 
enforce it.
  I will be glad to set up the meetings and see what we can do to 
resolve this. Because of this reason, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) yielded back his 
time. Is the gentleman asking unanimous consent to reclaim his 30 
seconds he yielded back?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just point out that the Attorney General enforces the laws of 
the United States, and enforcement of this section would be under the 
Department of Justice and Attorney General.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It almost gets tiresome to deal with the fact that this amendment 
keeps coming up every so often, and it just looks different, or it 
attempts to sound different, but it is the same amendment. And we have 
to understand that, but we need to explain it over and over again.
  What these amendments try to do, and the King amendment is part of 
this approach, is to engage local law enforcement, local police 
departments, local sheriffs departments in enforcing immigration law. 
On its face that does not sound terrible, but in reality it is a major 
problem. That is the reason why just about every single local police 
department in the Nation has repeatedly stated that they do not want to 
take on the duties of enforcing immigration law.
  Here is the problem. Whether you are here undocumented, or whether 
you are here legally awaiting citizenship or another status, and, in 
fact, I would venture to say if you are a citizen who looked at the 
immigration department as a group of folks who were not interested 
necessarily in helping you but making your life difficult, you do not 
feel comfortable dealing with immigration officials.
  On the other hand, local police departments throughout this country 
have done a great job in letting immigrants, regardless of their 
status, know that they are here to help and they are here to work 
together with them. So what the local police departments have been able 
to accomplish above all is to gain the confidence of newly-arrived 
folks in this country so that when they see a crime, when they see 
someone committing a crime, they come forth, give information, 
participate and assist the police.
  The reason local law enforcement does not want any of these 
amendments to pass or their involvement in enforcing immigration law, 
which would be the effect of this, is that they then would be seen by 
those immigrants as someone that cannot be trusted, someone they cannot 
deal with, and they will lose their ability to do what they do best, 
which is solve local crime and get the bad folks who create problems in 
our communities.
  So, please, I would want everyone who looks at this series of 
amendments to pay attention to the fact that while it may look good on 
its face, the final result is local law enforcement officials being 
seen by the immigrant community as adversaries, as enemies in some 
cases. This is not what the police departments want to do. This is not 
what they should do, and this is not what we should ask them to do.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are opposed to the amendment. I want to put in the Record that we 
will be glad to work with the gentleman and bring the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice up and see if we can 
try to do what this amendment does not do, but we can really try to 
accomplish what they are trying to accomplish.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
Representative King's amendment to the Commerce Justice, and State 
Appropriations Act for FY2005. This is an indirect attempt to further 
the objectives of the CLEAR Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate counterpart 
(S. 1906). These bills would 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 to become immigration 
agents.
  Subsections (a) and (b) of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373, 
(IIRIA) prohibits Federal, State or local government officials from 
preventing or restricting any government entity from exchanging 
information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) regarding the citizenship status or immigration status of any 
individual. The King amendment would provide additional funds for 
enforcing these provisions.

[[Page H5362]]

While these provisions just prohibit State and local governments from 
preventing this exchange of information, the ultimate objective, which 
is expressed in the CLEAR Act, is to require State and local police 
officers to assist ICE in enforcing the civil provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I oppose this objective.
  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, North Carolina, 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 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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the King Amendment, which 
would designate funds to enforce a section of the United States Code 
that has been law since 1996.
  The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, prohibits states and localities from refusing to share 
information with the Federal government on the immigration status of 
individuals.
  Some localities don't allow their officers to report the illegal 
status of criminal aliens to the Federal government. This is a direct 
violation of Federal law and hinders our efforts to remove criminal 
immigrants from the United States. It turns these localities into 
resorts for illegal immigrants.
  The Federal government cannot do its job of deporting criminal aliens 
if law enforcement is not telling the Federal government who these 
individuals are. This results in a situation where criminal aliens are 
arrested, jailed, and then released into our communities where they 
commit more crimes.
  When State and local law enforcement officers arrest someone for a 
crime, and it becomes apparent that the person is an illegal alien, 
this should be reported to the Federal government so the individual can 
be deported. To hide the illegal status of a criminal alien only means 
more crime.
  This amendment does nothing to change existing immigration law. This 
amendment simply requires the Federal government to enforce current 
law.
  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 Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on this question will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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. Smith of Michigan:
       Page 72, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. All point of orders are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This amendment is offered partially representing my concern that 
under the UC that was offered last night, this body would not allow the 
full amendment. However, under that UC this amendment is appropriate, 
according to the Parliamentarian.
  My concern is that this body should express concern, if not outrage, 
about the actions of the United Nations in the Oil-for-Food program. It 
should be a heads-up, a reminder, that we cannot ask the United Nations 
to be responsible for so many things that affect our future.
  The particular language of this amendment takes appropriations and 
dollars from United Nations contributions to international 
organizations line item. This appropriation is reduced by $20 million. 
I would call to my colleagues' attention that this appropriation is 
increased 19.4 percent over last year. Even with this amendment, there 
is still a 17.4 percent increase.
  Recently, both my Committee on Agriculture and Committee on 
International Relations held hearings on the United Nations Oil-for-
Food, the so-called OFF program, scandal. That program taught us a lot 
about the United Nations' weaknesses and I think explains the actions 
of countries like France and Russia when they worked against us over 
the last several years.
  The U.N. placed trade sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded 
Kuwait in 1991. By 1995, the sanctions were widely blamed for the 
developing humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
  The U.S. and Britain realized that Iraq, which has the second largest 
oil reserves in the world, could trade oil for food and medicine. We 
pushed the U.N. Security Council Resolution 986, and the so-called Oil-
for-Food program was created. If effective, it would have reduced the 
humanitarian impact of the sanctions while preventing Hussein from 
buying weapons.
  Unfortunately, Hussein cheated the OFF program, and the U.N. did not 
stop it. He managed to get his hands on at least $10 billion of Oil-
for-Food money. Other countries were complicit in helping him cheat. 
France and Russia demanded that we let Hussein design the OFF, the Oil-
for-Food, program. It allowed Hussein to pick the price for his oil, to 
pick his customers, to control the people who audited him, and within a 
few years the flawed program allowed Hussein to sell at low prices in 
exchange for kickbacks that were funneled into Swiss bank accounts.
  This was suspected at the time, but it was impossible to fix. Fixing 
it would have required unanimous support from the permanent members of 
the Security Council, including France and Russia, and at the time 
these countries said that they wanted to end the sanctions completely. 
Of course, France and Russia and China all had oil contracts with Iraq 
and Hussein that would have been activated, resulting in huge benefits 
for those countries had the sanctions been removed.
  I repeat, this funding for this appropriation that we are trying to 
reduce by $20 million is from a line item that is increased 19.4 
percent over last year, and even with the $20 million reduction still 
results in a 17.4 percent increase.
  The U.N. bureaucrats and what is happening in the U.N. should concern 
us. There is no question that the U.N. was slow to file reports and 
bring irregularities to the attention of the Security Council and its 
oversight committee.
  Furthermore, Iraq paid its U.N. auditors. Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was 
paying the auditors that were supposed to audit them, and the more 
trading they allowed, the more money the U.N. got.
  These arrangements have only come to light since Saddam Hussein's 
fall. There are reports that even the U.N.'s head of the Oil-for-Food 
program, Benon Sevan, was on the take from Hussein.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not go through this bill of making these kinds 
of huge appropriations from the United States taxpayers to the U.N. 
without calling to attention these kinds of discrepancies. The U.S. and 
Britain have pushed for an audit to find out what happened.
  Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is heading a 
U.N.

[[Page H5363]]

investigation. However, the U.N. is stonewalling. Mr. Sevan sent 
letters ordering U.N. offices to refuse to cooperate. I am going to say 
that again. This U.N. official sent letters ordering the U.N. offices 
to refuse to cooperate. Russia has asserted that it will not release 
any documents, and other U.N. bureaucrats have refused to share papers.
  I have sponsored legislation that would cut U.S. support for the U.N. 
if it does not cooperate. I would hope that bill would at least come to 
this floor for debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would clarify that pursuant to the order of 
yesterday, this amendment is debatable for 10 minutes by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and 10 minutes by an opponent.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I want to congratulate 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his persistence. He should 
get an ``A'' for that, if not for the content.
  I called Volcker after this happened, and I have the same concern. I 
want to bring to the gentleman's attention, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) might get a copy of the report, page 107. Here is 
what we said.
  ``The Committee directs the Department to bring all necessary 
resources to bear on the investigation of fraud and bribery allegations 
regarding the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. The Committee 
expects the Department to provide all requested documentation to 
Congressional Committees, and to provide any requested support to the 
Secretary General's Independent Inquiry Committee. The Committee 
strongly supports this Inquiry and expects the Inquiry Committee's 
review to be thorough, rigorous and expeditious.''
  Secondly, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has really 
done a good job, has been holding hearings.
  I called Director Mueller, the Director of the FBI, and asked him 
would he give the best FBI agents that he has to be on the team with 
Volcker. He has agreed. He said he would get some of his best white-
collar crime people. Mr. Volcker then called me and thanked me for that 
and is moving ahead, and he said when we need your help, we will ask 
you for that help.
  We also are going to get FinCEN, the financial service center of the 
Department of the Treasury, to also be involved. We have also asked the 
Secret Service that does money laundering to be involved.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is right, this ought to be 
condemned, and if the U.N. does not participate, if Volcker says he is 
not getting the cooperation, the only criticism of the Smith amendment 
is it will not do enough. It should not do $20 million; that is wimpy.

                              {time}  1415

  It should do $50 million, $60 million. It will be a wimpy amendment 
if they do not cooperate. Volcker has said he wants to pursue this, and 
he believes he is making progress. And the FBI and FinCEN and Secret 
Service will be involved.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what the Smith amendment does. It has 
nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with that. It would cut 
money from the Food and Agricultural Organization. The Food and 
Agricultural Organization, where our former colleague, and my very best 
friend, Congressman Tony Hall, is running it and doing a lot to abolish 
hunger in the world, and talking about GMA and things that the 
gentleman is interested in, would be cut. That program would be cut.
  The World Food Program. Jim Morris, an American, running the World 
Food Program, one of the people who are trying to bring food to Sudan 
and to Darfur, where there is a genocide, perhaps, going on. That 
organization would be involved.
  Also, this amendment would impact on the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, whereby we are trying to make sure that Iran does not have 
nuclear weapons and is trying to deal with the issue of North Korea. 
Why would we want to go after them?
  Lastly, NATO. This would cut all the international organizations. Why 
would we, when NATO is in Afghanistan and we are trying to get NATO to 
participate, as I believe they should in Iraq, and quite frankly I am 
disappointed that the Germans and French have not participated with us, 
why would we do this at this time?
  Now, I think in fairness, that is not the intention of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I think the gentleman is trying to make a 
point, but the point is a very blunt point. And to cut FAO, to cut the 
Atomic Energy Agency, to go after NATO, and to deal with the World Food 
Program and the FAO, which is trying to bring an end to the famine and 
the hunger in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and particularly in Darfur would be a 
mistake.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this 
is cut from one of the largest expenditures in the United Nations 
appropriations, that is, to the contributions to international 
organizations. I think the American taxpayer in general is not willing 
to increase this account by 19.4 percent at a time that the gentleman 
from Virginia admits that the U.N. is doing something that is 
unconscionable and that should not be acceptable.
  When we have other countries that are complicit, apparently, in this 
graft-type program of oil for food, along with what appears to be a 
reluctance of the United Nations to cooperate, we need a signal. I 
would hope this $20 million would be spent for science and research, 
because I chair the Subcommittee on Research.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, it is not. And I do not think the 
gentleman would want to do anything that would hurt Volcker with regard 
to the efforts. I would rather have the FBI and the Secret Service and 
the Financial Center there.
  Also, when the gentleman says independent agencies, that is also the 
World Food Program. That is also the issue with regard to the SARS 
outbreak in China. We do not want SARS to come here to the United 
States. And NATO.
  So for all those reasons, and God bless the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith), I give him an A for the intention and effort to pursue 
this, and I hope we see his son here next year taking his place, but 
this amendment that he meant to do does not do what he meant to do. I 
think it would do a lot of harm; and due to that, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  One of the reasons I did not ask the chairman for time and took my 
own time is I did not want to say anything the chairman did not agree 
with on his time. But I would imagine that the sponsor of this 
amendment has not voted against expenditures for the war, and yet he is 
concerned about expenditures for international organizations, my point 
being that this is probably the worst time in our history to withdraw 
from international organizations.
  We are, and I am one of those who believes that we were wrong in 
invading Iraq; I am one of those who believes that we were misled on 
every issue, including weapons of mass destruction and to go into this 
war. But whether we were misled or not and whether one agrees with me 
or not, the end result is the same. We are rebuilding the country; and 
an incredible amount of money, paid for by the taxpayers, is going into 
Iraq.
  And especially at a time now when so many people in that region and 
throughout the world have lost respect for us, this is not the time to 
withdraw from international organizations. On the contrary, this is the 
time when we should take some of that money we are spending on 
rebuilding in Iraq, some of that money we are spending on that war and 
use it to join still more organizations.
  Why? Because, unlike the war, and unlike the invasion, these 
organizations give us an opportunity to look as

[[Page H5364]]

the people we are, a good, caring Nation that cares about the rest of 
the people in the world and wants to help; not one that invades people 
on false assumptions and premises.
  So I would say to the gentleman that his concern about taxpayer 
dollars being spent here, right now this is probably one of the better 
areas to spend taxpayer dollars, and not in the areas we are spending 
them right now. I would really wish that the gentleman would reconsider 
this amendment, because this amendment, unfortunately, may get some 
people's excitement up and foolishly support it in a way that would 
hurt our involvement.
  Even President Bush, lately, has been quoted as saying that he is 
supportive of the work the U.N. is doing and the kinds of things that 
have to be done.
  Lastly, the gentleman is still, as some Members are, upset at the 
fact that the Germans and the Russians and the French did not agree 
with us on this particular invasion. Well, we do not agree with them on 
a lot of things and that does not mean we drop out of dealing with them 
on a daily basis and working with them to make a better world for all 
of us.
  So I would hope the gentleman would reconsider this. If not, then I 
would hope that people vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would ask the ranking member if he does not object to the fact that 
the United Nations took $400 million of what was intended to be money 
to pay for inspections at a time when they were not having inspections.
  I would ask the ranking member if he is not concerned with a report 
from the Wall Street Journal that the U.N. took $100 million from the 
Oil-For-Food Program and used it for operations.
  I would be concerned whether the ranking member or any Republican or 
any Democrat is not concerned with the fact that a United Nations 
employee who was handling the Oil-For-Food Program, Mr. Sevan, has now 
written letters, according to Mr. Volcker's staff, suggesting that the 
information not be released regarding this program.
  It is obvious there has been some misuse of money. I would like to 
suggest that the real story here is that many countries make decisions 
based on what is good for their country as representatives to the 
United Nations with no regard for the goals and ideals of the U.N. 
charter. Certainly this calls the Security Council's moral authority 
into question and degrades its capacity to respond appropriately to 
events throughout the world.
  Is it any wonder that under pressure from these countries the U.N. 
could not agree to support us in Iraq? Is it any wonder that at the 
first threat of danger the U.N. pulled out of Iraq?
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we need to carry out a full and 
thorough investigation and make changes if the U.S. is to continue with 
some degree of confidence. And we need to send this signal of this 
reduction with this kind of testimony regarding a $20 million reduction 
for the U.N. I think this action sends the beginning of a message that 
our country and the taxpayers of this country will not stand for this 
kind of abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. And then I can strike the last word?
  The CHAIRMAN. Plus the gentleman has the pro forma motion.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the Chair. I wanted to be sure there was time for 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to speak.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if all the things have been done that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith) thinks have been done, and I think they may 
have, the Smith amendment is a power puff amendment. It is too weak. We 
will follow this carefully. If they have done it, then I think it 
should be more drastic.
  I would call to the attention of the gentleman from Michigan page 26 
of the report. It says: ``Oil-For-Food: The committee directs the FBI 
to provide assistance in the United Nations' investigation of the Oil-
For-Food Program, if requested by the recently established independent 
inquiry committee chaired by Paul Volcker. The committee strongly 
supports this investigation and encourages the FBI to make resources 
available as appropriate to assure its successful conclusion.''
  So I think what the gentleman from Michigan is saying is accurate; 
and we will be very, very aggressive, but we called Mr. Volcker. I 
personally called the director of the FBI. He personally gave me a 
commitment to put his very best agents on this.
  Having said that, I think the gentleman's language would be better if 
it had been conditional, saying that if there is not cooperation by the 
Russians and by others, then this will be the case. But I do not want 
to do anything to keep Volcker from getting to the bottom of this.
  There are probably people involved in this that may very well go to 
jail, and I want to see the Secret Service, the Financial Service, and 
the FBI deal with this. So the amendment does not deal with that; it 
cuts, potentially, contributions to NATO or something like that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I 
will place my full statement in the Record and just make a few other 
points.
  First off, this is a huge scandal. I do not know any scandal that 
comes close to it. We are talking about a $5.7 billion smuggling of 
oil, a $4.4 billion underselling of oil and getting kickbacks, and 
overbuying for commodities and getting kickbacks. We are talking about 
the outing of U.N. and government officials around the world by, 
ironically, an Iraqi free press, exposed by a government leak of the 
Iraqi Governing Council.
  This is huge. And I submit to my colleagues that the French and the 
Russians and the Chinese and U.N. officials never thought it would be 
known, because they knew they had their records and they would keep 
them. They would never share them with anyone, and we certainly would 
not get the records from Iraq because we would never attack Iraq and 
never free the Iraqi people. I guess that is what people thought.
  The problem with this amendment is it is misguided, in the sense that 
we need the cooperation of the U.N. right now. If we do not get it, and 
if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is still here, we should 
pursue that. But when he asks is anyone concerned, I know the ranking 
member is concerned. I clearly know the chairman is because he came to 
me and told me that in conversations with Mr. Volcker he promised him 
that we would provide all the cooperation and provide him the best 
resources available. So I appreciate what the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) has done.
  Are we concerned? Absolutely. We have the Committee on Government 
Reform and my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations, conducting investigations. We have staff 
dedicated to looking at this. I think we have the Committee on 
Agriculture looking at this. We have the Committee on International 
Relations looking at this. We will get to the bottom of the corrupt 
Oil-For-Food Program with or without U.N. support.
  When we do, I do think people will be going to jail. I think it will 
be extraordinarily embarrassing for some governments. I think it might 
explain somehow why the French act like the French, and why the Chinese 
and the Russians were reluctant to confront the Saddam regime. I think 
it is going to tell us a lot of things about corrupt people, corrupt 
actions, and the motivations of government. But right now we need as 
much cooperation as we can get from the U.N.
  I would request, frankly, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman withdraw 
his

[[Page H5365]]

amendment and not require folks to vote for or against it, because I 
think the concern of the Members will be shown of the next few months. 
But I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman has given us to debate 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and share the gentleman from 
Michigan's concern about the Oil-For-Food scandal, I rise in opposition 
to this amendment.
  Getting to the bottom of this scandal is the reason my Subcommittee 
on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations 
convened a hearing on April 21; we want to help pierce the veil of 
secrecy that still shrouds the largest humanitarian aid effort in 
history.
  This much we know about the Oil-for-Food Program; Something went 
wrong. The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this 
program: $5.7 in smuggled oil and $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks 
on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-For-Food Program. There is no 
innocent explanation for this.
  We want the State Department, the intelligence community, and the 
U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-For-Food 
transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency 
embarrasses some members of the Security Council.
  The purpose of our investigation, beyond returning to the Iraqi 
people that which was stolen from them, should be to improve the United 
Nations, not to create an excuse to withdraw our support from the body.
  In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean, 
transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy 
should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not 
systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of political 
profiteering.
  This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations 
and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any 
found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity.
  That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption.
  In the early 1990s, because of concerns about United Nations 
operations and the lack of reforms by that body, the United States 
began withholding its payments to the U.N. and fell into arrears. We 
subsequently debated this issue for years, and, in November 1999, 
Congress and the administration finally agreed on a plan to repay our 
longstanding debt to the U.N. in exchange for significant reforms by 
the world body.
  Mr. Chairman, as the U.N.'s single largest contributor, the United 
States is granted unparalleled power to craft the U.N.'s agenda and 
budget. Our financial leadership truly gives us the ability to shape 
world events.
  Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for 
leadership, yet if this amendment were to pass, what they would see is 
a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to its 
international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to 
unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need 
every ounce of leverage?
  While we must continue examining its operations and recommending 
operational improvements, the United Nations deserves U.S. support as 
it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist 
countries in moving toward democracy.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would just like to ask the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), if he agrees with a 19.4 percent increase in 
this appropriation line item.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely I do. Because the U.N. needs these resources 
for a lot of reasons and the nongovernment organizations that are 
involved in trying to help create some peace in Iraq, et cetera, et 
cetera, et cetera. I do not think it is advisable, though, to subtract 
this money.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not 
think a 19.4 percent increase is justified at a time when the United 
Nations has instructed its people to withhold information from the 
Volcker Commission.
  I do not think it is justified; and I would say to the chairman, if 
there was unanimous consent from him and the ranking member, and if 
there is no objection and it would be appropriate, I would be delighted 
to amend this amendment to say that this $20 million would be withheld 
on condition of full cooperation by other countries and by the United 
Nations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WOLF. I would have no objection to that at all.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Would you support the amendment with that 
language?
  Mr. WOLF. If it would say what again?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If it says that the $20 million is going to be 
withheld unless and until there is full cooperation by the United 
Nations and participating countries releasing available information on 
the Oil-for-Food program?
  Mr. WOLF. Absolutely I would support it, and perhaps it maybe ought 
to be changed from 20- to 40-, but yes, I would support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to change that, 
too. If there is no objection, I would make that amendment. I would ask 
for unanimous consent.
  I understand that it has to be in writing. Is that correct, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, he could 
redraft his amendment so that it is clear, then without prejudice it 
could be considered, without objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, with the 
understanding that I could redraft it and bring it to the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan that the amendment be withdrawn without prejudice?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Sherman

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Sherman:
       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 detain for more than 30 days a person, apprehended 
     on United States territory, solely because that person is 
     classified as an enemy combatant.
       Sec. 802. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to defend in court the detention for more than 30 
     days of a person, apprehended on United States territory, 
     solely because that person is classified as an enemy 
     combatant.
       Sec. 803. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to classify any person as an enemy combatant if that 
     person is apprehended on United States territory.

  The CHAIRMAN. All points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order 
of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  As I indicated, I have two amendments that I would hope that those 
who wish to speak on either of them would be on the way to this floor.
  My first amendment deals with the enemy combatant doctrine, and what 
the bill does is that it provides that none of the funds in this act 
can be used to detain for more than 30 days anyone apprehended on U.S. 
territory solely because that person is identified as an enemy 
combatant. That is to say, detention of over 30 days of anyone 
apprehended in the United States would be done under our regular 
criminal law.
  Now, first let us talk about what this amendment is not. This 
amendment does not try to protect our privacy. There will be incursions 
into our privacy in this war on terror, but it is one thing to say the 
government may know something about what we are doing or reading. It is 
another thing to say that the executive branch alone can incarcerate 
any of us permanently, and that is the wrong that this amendment 
addresses.
  Second, this amendment is not about those apprehended on foreign 
battlefields or on any foreign territory. It addresses only those 
apprehended on U.S. territory.
  Third, this amendment does not authorize any Federal agency to do 
anything. It is a limitation amendment,

[[Page H5366]]

and so by its terms, it prevents the use of funds to detain someone for 
over 30 days. That does not authorize anyone to detain someone for 29 
days. This is an additional limitation on the expenditure of funds.
  Now, the enemy combatant doctrine is the most dangerous doctrine 
propounded by anyone in this country. What does our criminal law do, 
and how does it work? First, Congress defines what is a crime. Then the 
judicial branch determines whether facts have occurred so that the 
defendant is guilty of that crime.
  What is the enemy combatant doctrine? The administration vaguely 
defines what might be the crime, and that is subject to change any time 
they want, and the administration, whoever that might be, determines 
whether facts have occurred that cause someone to have committed that 
crime or that wrong.
  So is someone an enemy combatant if they plant a bomb? Are they an 
enemy combatant if they applaud a bomb planter? Are they an enemy 
combatant if they defend someone who applauds planting a bomb? We do 
not know, but we do know that if you are classified as an enemy 
combatant, you can be incarcerated immediately, permanently, or at 
least until the end of the war on terror, which I would say means the 
same as permanently.
  Now, is someone a bomb planter, or is it a case of mistaken identity? 
Under the enemy combatant doctrine, the courts do not determine whether 
a particular individual planted a bomb. The executive branch 
determines, locks the person up permanently or for as long as they 
think that person is dangerous, no matter how mistaken they might be.
  Now, the courts have not solved this problem. We do have a recent 
court opinion, actually three of them, but in dealing with this issue, 
we have not a majority opinion, but a plurality opinion. So the court 
has not spoken with the majority. And on the key issues involved that I 
am speaking about, they remanded the case to a lower court.
  It is time now for Congress to do all it can to reign in this 
doctrine of enemy combatants. To do otherwise, to be silent, as we have 
been for over a year, is to acquiesce in a new doctrine of criminal law 
where the executive can arrest anyone, after that arrest determine what 
it is that makes up the definition of enemy combatant, and then decide 
what facts have occurred, subject to no judicial review, as to whether 
that person has, in fact, violated those wrongs as previously 
determined by the administration. This is indeed a dangerous doctrine.
  Today I do not know whether it is being misused, but if we do not 
act, I assure you it will be misused in the future. Someone will be 
erroneously accused of bomb-making by some local enemy of theirs. The 
executive will have detained that person for as long as they think they 
are dangerous and for as long as the war on terrorism continues. That 
could be for a long time.
  Tomorrow those who simply loudly protest the war on terrorism will be 
called enemy combatants.
  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 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say one does not have to go too far 
with this amendment before finding a very strong point for defeating 
the amendment and objecting to it. Quoting section 802, it states that 
none of the funds made available in this act may be used to defend in 
court. So the U.S. cannot even send in people to defend in court the 
detention for more than 30 days of a person apprehended on United 
States territory solely because that person is classified as an enemy 
combatant.
  Very simply, we have people who have been in Guantanamo, in fact who 
have been released from Guantanamo, who have been proven to have gone 
back to the battlefield and taken up arms against the United States.
  If the Sherman amendment passed, if we caught Osama bin Laden in the 
U.S. tomorrow, the Department of Justice would not be able to legally 
defend his detention as an enemy combatant. That makes absolutely no 
sense.
  It states further that none of the funds made available in this act 
may be used to classify any person as an enemy combatant if that person 
is apprehended on United States territory. We could have somebody 
driving a hijacked airplane and clearly in an act of aggression against 
the United States, and none of the funds available in this act, even if 
that person intended and was attempting to drive that airplane into a 
U.S. building, killing Americans, none of the funds in this act could 
be used to classify that person as an enemy combatant.
  So interestingly, the Supreme Court cases that have held on this 
subject have said at least the combatant is entitled to some type of a 
hearing to determine whether, in fact, he is a combatant and whether he 
is being held legally. Well, a hearing requires that there are 
attorneys present and that there are advocates for and against the 
position. If we take section 208 of the Sherman amendment, we cannot 
spend any of this money to have the lawyer representing the United 
States of America to make his point that that person is a combatant and 
that we cannot hold him for longer than 30 days.
  I would simply ask Members to vote against this amendment on this 
basis: It makes absolutely no sense. It in no way represents or 
reflects determinations made in the relevant court cases with respect 
to enemy combatants, detainees at Guantanamo or any other place.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, what we use to protect American citizens is our 
criminal law. If bin Laden arrives in the United States, he has already 
been indicted. If someone smashes an airplane into a building, I 
suggest they be arrested for murder. What defends us from terrorists; 
how do we deal with mass murderers? We arrest them.
  Why do we need instead to use this new doctrine of enemy combatant? 
To say that our only choice is to abdicate to the executive branch 
determining who has committed a wrong and what wrongs justify 
incarceration, or we have to incarcerate no one ignores the criminal 
law as we know it.
  Yes, those who commit crimes should be arrested and detained, not 
under the doctrine of enemy combatancy, but under the doctrine of 
criminal law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, while I was watching the spectacular 
fireworks July 4 over the Washington Monument, I was reminded that our 
Revolution and experiment in freedom and liberty is still going on. We 
are still faced with struggles to protect our basic freedoms. We are 
still faced with the need to occasionally rein in unchecked authority 
of the executive branch of government.
  We still need to stand up for the proposition that no Chief Executive 
should be able to throw into a dark, deep cell an American citizen 
without eventually affording that citizen a trial. That is a basic 
American proposition.
  We still believe that reviewing an incarceration decision by the 
judicial system is the best way to ensure both security and liberty. 
And make no mistake, we face real threats to our physical safety, and 
those miscreants ought to be punished to the full extent of the law.
  But we have always founded our democracy on the proposition that 
detention ultimately must be subject to a hearing and a review, and we 
should not abandon that principle now out of fear. In the words of 
Supreme Court Justice Stevens, we ``have created a unique and 
unprecedented threat to the freedom of every American citizen,'' and 
that ``unconstrained executive detention for the purpose of 
investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the 
Star Chamber.''
  Freedom is not free. It demands us to stand up against threats to 
freedom. It calls for us to speak against unchecked executive 
authority, just like what was done in 1776. And while I disagree with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), I am against the right of 
any President to throw someone in a dark cell and never give him a 
trial.

[[Page H5367]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while I believe misguided, 
is nonetheless a very important amendment because it changes the 
parameters, or at least it seeks to change the parameters, of the 
definition of enemy combatant.

                              {time}  1445

  It seeks to force in this case the United States to treat enemy 
combatants as criminals rather than as enemy combatants, and it fails 
to recognize, therefore, one very significant change that has taken 
place, something that is very different about this war that then 
existed in any war in modern history, and that is that there is no 
doubt that the attacks of September 11 constituted acts of war, and, 
therefore, by definition the United States territory, the 50 States and 
our territories, are part of the battlefield.
  The gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) amendment does not seek 
to curb the definition of enemy combatant as it applies to Guantanamo 
or as it applies to Iran or Afghanistan, just the United States. So the 
gentleman makes a difference between the part of the battlefield that 
is offshore and the part of the battlefield that is onshore in this 
case. And I think that goes to create a mistake, because it places 30-
day limits on the detention of an enemy combatant by the Department of 
Justice. What that means is that if the FBI apprehends an enemy 
combatant in the process of trying to carry out an act of terrorism in 
the United States, and he is charged by the Department of Justice and 
imprisoned, he can only be held for 30 days, and that seems to me to go 
in the wrong direction. It means that if Mohammad Atta were picked up 
and identified as an enemy combatant, that he would have to be released 
in 30 days.
  The Sherman amendment kind of reminds me of when I chaired the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for 6 
years, and it sounds like what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman) really wants to do is he wants the war on terror to be run 
like a catch-and-release fish tournament, and that obviously is 
something that we do not want to see done here.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this 
well-intended amendment, but which takes us in exactly the opposite 
direction we should be going.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman assumes that we have no criminal law. He suggests that 
if a bomber is caught red-handed, we cannot charge him with being a 
bomber. We cannot arrest him. We cannot indict him. We cannot try him. 
We either have to release him, or we have to have this new doctrine of 
enemy combatants. I suggest if we catch a bomber, we arrest him. He 
suggests a doctrine in which anyone could be called an enemy combatant 
for doing whatever the administration thinks is harmful to the United 
States and incarcerated forever, and that the only alternative is to 
release all terrorists to swim amongst us.
  What a preposterous alternative. What an attempt to put in the hands 
of the executive branch the right to arrest anyone and permanently 
detain them and to say that the only alternative is to release Mohammad 
Atta.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in most of our wars, we have done things 
that have trampled civil liberties in the name of national security. 
Invariably we end up apologizing for it later when historians say that 
the internment of the Japanese Americans in World War II or the Alien 
and Sedition Acts of 1798 or whatever did not, in fact, aid national 
security. We are doing it again.
  The Supreme Court 1\1/2\ weeks ago made very clear that we cannot 
simply hold people indefinitely by labeling them an enemy combatant. 
They gave a broad hint that when the Padilla case comes up, they will 
tell us that this amendment is mild, and that the power the President 
claims to throw anybody in jail in the United States because the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) says that the United States is a 
battlefield and hold them there indefinitely simply on their own say-so 
with no due process, this is a power that nobody has claimed since 
before the Magna Carta. Habeas corpus was invented to say that the 
President is a President; even a king is not a dictator.
  Let me finally say that this amendment is necessary to say that we 
will fight this war against the terrorists, but we will fight it as 
Americans in the tradition of liberty.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
has expired.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given an additional 15 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will quote from Sir Thomas More in the 
play ``A Man for all Seasons,'' because we are told we must eliminate 
our traditions of liberty to get at the terrorists. Sir Thomas More was 
asked: ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law?
  And More said: ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the 
law to get after the devil?''
  ``I'd cut down every law in England to do that.''
  And Sir Thomas More finally said: ``Oh? And when the last law was 
down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws 
all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to 
coast, and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand 
upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil 
benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.''
  And that is why this amendment must pass.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This amendment raises serious constitutional issues which we should 
not deal with on this appropriations bill. This amendment has no 
limitations as to applying only to U.S. citizens or only applying to 
the global war on terrorism. It applies to any situation where the U.S. 
may be in conflict, and it would apply to anyone, not only U.S. 
citizens.
  Under the proposed amendment, the President would not be able to 
detain anyone who is in this country on a mission for al Qaeda or any 
organization or country that had chosen to attack the United States. He 
would not be able to detain that person for more than 30 days as an 
enemy combatant. Instead, he would have to release the citizen or that 
person or prosecute him criminally. That change in the law would 
deprive the Commander in Chief of one of the traditional tools used in 
warfare and one that is particularly critical in the struggle with a 
secretive enemy like the current war on terrorism, like al Qaeda, 
because of the extent to which the United States must rely on 
intelligence sources to ferret out al Qaeda plots.
  The reason that the executive may need the ability to detain a 
citizen as an enemy combatant is that proving a criminal case in court 
will often require compromising critical intelligence sources. As the 
Deputy Attorney General recently explained in discussing the Jose 
Padilla case, the one and only case of an American citizen seized as an 
enemy combatant in the United States, ``Had we tried to make a case 
against Jose Padilla through our criminal justice system,'' it would 
have ``jeopardized intelligence sources.'' And to be very clear, in 
this war jeopardizing the intelligence sources means putting American 
lives at risk. It is to avoid that very real threat to continued 
success of the war effort that criminal prosecutions may not always be 
a practical possibility for dealing with enemy combatants.
  This amendment, although well intentioned, and though perhaps raising 
some issues that need to be discussed, they should be discussed going 
through the committee process and should not be hastily put onto an 
appropriations bill as an amendment without going through a full 
debate.

[[Page H5368]]

  I urge my colleagues to be opposed to this amendment because of the 
severe limitations it will place on the executive branch, it will place 
on our ability to conduct not only a global war on terrorism, but any 
enemy combatants in the future.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who serves on the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an area we have to be pretty 
careful about. This is a very serious question, and, in fact, it raises 
grave constitutional questions that are unsettled, the principles of 
separation of power.
  But with that aside, it also gets kind of confusing. So let us go 
back to not only our own Constitution, but also the Geneva Conventions. 
The Geneva Conventions under Article 5 say if one captures an 
individual and they know who they are, then they are automatically by 
the capturing power given POW status. If there is any doubt with regard 
to their status, under the Geneva Conventions, the capturing power then 
is to conduct what are called Article 5 tribunals.
  What has happened here is when there is no doubt of the status of the 
individual, the executive branch has made the decision, then obviously 
they are not a POW; so they are not afforded the protections of the 
Geneva Conventions. And if they are not afforded in a tribunal Article 
5 because their status is not in doubt, there is a term of art that has 
been used. They are called an enemy combatant, but they also can be 
called security detainees, unprivileged belligerents, unlawful 
combatants.
  This is a very dangerous area what this amendment tries to do. It 
tries to dance into the area of the executive branch and say we cannot 
classify individuals as to these types of things.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a very unsettled part of the law. I have made 
a couple of notes with regard to the speakers who spoke before me who 
said that we need to rein in the doctrine. That is false because this 
is a doctrine that has been used very sparingly. In the 3 years for 
which we have had the war on terrorism, there is only one United States 
citizen that has been classified as an enemy combatant and has been 
detained, and if we were to only use the ``criminal process,'' what we 
then do is jeopardize our intelligence. And we are operating a war 
predominantly in the dark world. It is an intelligence war against a 
secret enemy, and for us to jeopardize that by going to the public 
domain is foolish on our part.
  Doing this on an appropriations bill, number one, using the word 
``foolish,'' that is foolish. We should not be doing that. The 
gentleman would like to entertain greater discussions on this. Let us 
take it through the authorizing committees, and let us, in fact, do 
that.
  The other said that it is unchecked executive authority. That is 
false. It is not unchecked because we have the checks and balances, and 
that is why this case was taken to the Supreme Court.
  I also would like to note that there is nothing, nothing, in current 
law requires resorting solely to criminal prosecutions. In the recent 
Hamdi decision, the United States Supreme Court did not directly 
address the Padilla scenario, but a majority of the Justices clearly 
agreed that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own 
citizens as an enemy combatant.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), 
chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we are playing a dangerous game here. If the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) had written an amendment that 
dealt with how U.S. citizens are treated, whether they can be found to 
be enemy combatants and detained, we might have had an interesting 
discussion. There has been, for example, discussion of the Jose Padilla 
case during this debate. But that is not the amendment that he wrote.
  The amendment that he wrote does not even apply strictly to 
terrorism. It applies to conventional warfare. So that if Adolph 
Hitler's Panzer Division were to land here in America, every single one 
of the Nazi troops would have to be sent through the judicial system. 
We could not deal with them as an enemy force. If Kim Jong-il sends his 
million-man army to land on America's shores, if they were to arrive in 
amphibious vehicles and roll tanks through our streets, every single 
one of those millions would have to be treated as a litigant in court 
under this amendment.
  We have never done this before. Least of all should we be doing this 
in an appropriations bill. These sorts of novel concepts that strip the 
Commander in Chief of his authority to conduct war for the United 
States of America that I would say that go so far as to completely 
upend the legal right of the United States to defend itself should not 
be written on the back of an envelope and attached as authorizing 
language essentially in an appropriations bill.
  Here is what the amendment says. It is a very short amendment. It 
says that we cannot use any of the funds available in this act to 
detain for more than 30 days a person apprehended on U.S. territory 
even if that person is an enemy combatant.

                              {time}  1500

  So we are not talking about people who might or might not be enemies 
of the United States. We are talking about people from foreign soil, 
not U.S. citizens, whether they be generals or troops, armies, coming 
over here. These people must be handled through the judicial legal 
system.
  This is an outrageous interference with the ability of the United 
States to defend itself. It is very dangerous. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what the gentleman from 
California said about this very simple amendment, and it is a very 
simple amendment. It simply says that if Mohamad Atta, you remember 
him, the leader of the 19 hijackers, if Mohamad Atta had been caught in 
this country prior to 9/11, this act would prohibit him from being 
classified as an enemy combatant. It would prohibit the funds to hold 
him for more than 30 days; it would prohibit the Justice Department 
from using any money to designate him as an enemy combatant.
  If a terrorist in Iraq blows up a car bomb and it kills 50 people, he 
can be held an unlimited amount of time. If he is in the United States, 
this says if he is in the United States, whether he is a citizen or 
not, he cannot be held for over 30 days, and this says no funds may be 
used to classify any person as an enemy combatant.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a war; and there are people in this country 
who are against us, and they need to be designated as such.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. To drop 
this on this committee a day before it is brought up, I do not care 
what side you are on, it just should not be done that way.
  How would this amendment treat Osama bin Laden? How would it treat 
Mohamad Atta? How would it treat people like that?
  This amendment should be certainly covered by extensive hearings by 
the Committee on the Judiciary and also the Committee on Armed 
Services, but not language that we got yesterday with no opportunity to 
look at the impact.
  Would this language result in the release of a terrorist? Should we 
look at and fully explore the ramifications and the consequences? Could 
the result of this be the release of a terrorist within the United 
States to commit further terrorist acts?
  The amendment would prevent an enemy combatant from being detained, 
would prevent Osama bin Laden, let us not say enemy combatant, would 
prevent Osama bin Laden from being detained for more than 30 days. What 
is the rationale for only being able to detain Osama bin Laden for 30 
days? Should it be 45 days?

[[Page H5369]]

  A bad amendment, late, not the approach. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sherman 
amendment that would limit the use of the enemy combatant doctrine to 
detain persons indefinitely.
  While this amendment would only apply to those apprehended on U.S. 
soil, the government has detained American citizens, individuals whose 
rights are without a doubt protected by the U.S. Constitution, without 
charging them or allowing their case to be brought before our judicial 
system. This is simply wrong.
  How can we expect the rest of the world to respect our way of life if 
we do not even adhere to the principles we claim to hold dear?
  How can we expect our own constituents to believe in the protection 
of their rights if the rights of others are trampled on?
  The Supreme Court recently determined that foreign citizens detained 
at Guantanamo Bay and American citizens detained in military brigs are 
entitled to their day in court.
  Clearly, it's time that this Administration begin to respect the 
rights of the people it claims are criminals. The Fifth Amendment of 
the Constitution provides for due process of law, and it's time we 
remembered that.
  I thank my friend Representative Sherman for offering this amendment 
today, and I urge my colleagues to support his 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 California (Mr. Sherman).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Vacating Withdrawal of Smith of Michigan Amendment

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings 
by which the Smith amendment was withdrawn without prejudice be 
vacated, to the end that the Chair now put the question thereon.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to speak on his reservation?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I do, Mr. Chairman, just for an explanation to 
the body. Originally, we thought we could work out a word change that 
would be acceptable, but it would still be subject to a unanimous 
consent request. We were informed there would be an objection, so that 
is why we vacated the rewording of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Michigan (Mr. Smith) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

                TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     first paragraph of the heading ``Courts of Appeals, District 
     Courts, and Other Judicial Services--salaries and expenses'', 
     not more than $7,500,000 shall be available for the United 
     States Court of Federal Claims.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget 
for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by one-half. Due to an unchecked 
law, a handful of Federal judges who decide claims against the 
government are collecting full-time wages for less than part-time work.
  The judges on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims are appointed for 15 
years, but jurists turn their terms into lifetime appointments by 
remaining as senior judges and collecting their full six-figure 
salaries. Currently, the Federal claims court has 16 active judges, and 
it has 13 senior-status judges.
  The workload of the court is hardly burdensome, as it averages fewer 
than two trials a year. While a handful of senior judges work a full 
docket, others handle only a fraction of their former caseloads; and 
still others, Mr. Chairman, still others do no cases whatsoever. They 
keep an empty docket. Yet all of them are paid the full-time Federal 
judge salary of $158,000 a year.
  This is known in the legal profession by lawyers who know this court, 
it is called ``charmed existence,'' and it is an abuse of judicial 
authority and a waste of taxpayer money. I would hope we would support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
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.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; but the 
committee will look at this issue, because I tend to agree with the 
gentleman on the circumstances involved. If they want to retire, they 
should retire. But, unfortunately, I do not think this amendment gets 
to that.
  The amendment would effectively reduce the amount of funds available 
to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A $7.5 million reduction would 
more than fully encompass the entire budget of the Clerk's office, both 
operating expenses, as well as salaries and benefits for the 
approximately 30 staff employed by the court, which is currently about 
$3 million.
  It is uncertain how the remaining reduction would be absorbed, since 
most of the remaining costs are contractual, rent and the judges' 
salaries and benefits. So while the judges and chambers staff would 
remain on board, with no Clerk's office staff or operating funding, the 
court would eventually cease operations, few if any cases could be 
tried, and the backlog would grow.
  In addition, this would result in extreme delay for plaintiffs in the 
more than 2,000 cases that are currently pending before the court that 
are waiting to have their cases against the U.S. Government.
  In addition, because the court was created in part to give citizens a 
court with jurisdiction to consider claims against the government, it 
would not be unreasonable to think that this could be viewed by some as 
a way to eliminate the government's liability in cases brought against 
it.
  So for those reasons, what it would do to the court, I oppose the 
amendment. But I would urge the Committee on the Judiciary to look into 
this whole issue of terms. I think once they are judges, they are 
judges. When they retire, to take a senior status and take no or few 
cases and still draw their full salary, quite frankly, it is not right.
  So I think what the committee will do is to draft a letter, send a 
letter to the court of claims, the chief justice, to ask them to look 
into this. But I do not want to shut the whole court down.
  Because of that, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman agreeing to look into this; 
and I think that is important, whether this amendment passes or not.
  There is somewhat of a movement within the other body to shut that 
court down completely. The value of it, there is a real question about 
it.
  In a recent Associated Press story, let me just quote a few lines 
from it, it says, ``Judges on a little known Federal court that decides 
claims against the government are appointed for 15 years, but collect 
their full six-figure salaries for the lifetime of the workload 
average, and they average fewer

[[Page H5370]]

than two trials each in one recent year.'' It goes on to say, 
``Taxpayers are spending top dollar for full-time judges who do not 
even perform part-time work.''
  Finally, the statement is made, ``They go from doing next to nothing 
to doing nothing and we are paying for it.''
  We still leave over $7 million in the budget for this court. We are 
not doing away with the court entirely. That decision is not being made 
at this point. I do not think this would be the appropriate place to do 
that. But this is a way to get at the abuse that is going on with that 
particular court and the abuse of taxpayer dollars.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition. But I think the Committee 
on the Judiciary, and we will also look at whether this court ought to 
be abolished, I think this Congress passes things and creates things. 
Maybe this ought to be transferred to the D.C. Court of Appeals or some 
other court. If the conditions are the way that the gentleman said, my 
sense is maybe it just ought to be abolished. But until it is there, 
these 2,000 cases are moving. So maybe I would be very supportive of 
abolishing it, but I think they have to be able to operate.
  So for that reason, we will do a letter. We will do a letter to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) asking him to look at this 
issue, as to whether or not the court ought to stay in existence.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherman

  Mr. SHERMAN. 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. Sherman:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

               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 implement, litigate 
     or defend the legality of, or enforce the regulations 
     prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency and published 
     in the Federal Register on January 13, 2004, at 69 Fed. Reg. 
     1895--1904 (relating to the scope of visitorial powers of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency) and at 69 Fed. Reg. 1904--1917 
     (relating to applicability and preemption of State law with 
     respect to national bank operations).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is the Sherman-Otter-Gutierrez amendment dealing with an issue 
very different from the one I was speaking about just a few minutes 
ago. But before I address this amendment, let me address that other 
amendment dealing with the enemy combatant doctrine.
  First, of course, we did lose on the voice vote. I should point out 
for the record there were only six Members present here on the floor at 
the time.
  The reason I did not call for a recorded vote is because I agree with 
some of the speakers on the other side. We need a better-crafted, more-
considered amendment than the one I wrote. That is why the authorizing 
committees, particularly the Committee on the Judiciary, need to focus 
on this issue.
  It is only frustration that after a year the Committee on the 
Judiciary has slept while this doctrine, which would allow not for the 
arrest only of Osama bin Laden, he could be arrested tomorrow, he has 
already been indicted, not for the arrest of Mohamad Atta, he could be 
arrested in a minute on a whole variety of charges. Somebody caught 
red-handed making a bomb could be arrested in a minute. But, rather, we 
have a doctrine out there that could lead to the permanent detention of 
people due to mistaken identity, could lead to somebody being 
permanently detained, because there is some local enemy that mis-
accuses the individual, and eventually could be used by an 
administration to detain anyone it felt was an enemy of that 
administration.
  So I look forward to a Committee on the Judiciary that does its job 
and a criminal code that criminalizes those things for which people 
should be incarcerated, and we do not incarcerate people because only 
one branch of government acts.
  Now let me shift to the Sherman-Otter-Gutierrez amendment. It deals 
with an entirely different issue. That issue is that renegade 
regulators at the OCC published just a few months ago a regulation 
stating that all national banks are exempt from all State consumer 
protection laws.

                              {time}  1515

  This is an extreme and an absurd regulatory provision. It is one that 
would cause national banks to be free from all of the attempts by State 
governments to prevent predatory lending.
  Now, I believe that we ought to have national standards, national 
standards to protect consumers from predatory lending practices and 
national standards to make sure that subprime borrowers are able to get 
credit. But to have this decision made by a renegade regulator is 
absurd.
  I agree with those who say that this is an issue that should be dealt 
with by the relevant committee, the Committee on Financial Services. In 
fact, the relevant chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations had urged the OCC to wait and not publish these rules 
until Congress had had a chance to act. She was ignored.
  I would hope that the Committee on Financial Services would go beyond 
the mere hearings that we have held, and we have had several, and would 
mark up a bill, either mark up a bill to tell the OCC that they cannot 
willy-nilly exempt all national banks from State regulation, or, 
perhaps even better, one that could also provide strong consumer 
protections and good access to capital to all those in the subprime 
borrowing market, protecting people from predatory lending practices.
  Since we have not had action in the form of a markup at the Committee 
on Financial Services, since the OCC ignored the request that they wait 
for publishing their rules, I thought it was important to come to this 
floor and offer an amendment to act immediately.
  I know that the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) would like to speak and will be to the 
floor soon.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Comptroller 
of the Currency is not within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, it is 
within the Department of Treasury. This is not the right bill to change 
the Comptroller of the Currency's policies concerning the regulation of 
national banks and State roles in regulated banks. It is a complex 
issue. The gentleman seems to acknowledge that the Committee on 
Financial Services ought to be the one to deal with it. I understand 
the Committee on Financial Services opposes the language to be included 
in the bill, so I strongly urge that we defeat the amendment and that 
he offer it maybe when another bill comes up dealing with the 
Comptroller of the Currency.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).

[[Page H5371]]

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his 
comments. Whether or not this is the proper place to make this 
correction, I think it is terribly important that the correction be 
made.
  The dual banking system in our Nation has a long and very productive 
and rich history. It has played a major role in making ours the 
strongest and most confirmed banking system in the world. The balance 
between the State-chartered banks and the national banks provides 
critical fuel to our economy, fosters innovation and competition, and 
provides Americans with a safe and sound banking system as a whole.
  I am deeply concerned that the OCC's preemptive rules would take that 
balance and put it into jeopardy. These rules could radically change 
our financial regulation structure, and overriding State law 
enforcement authority and the State laws for national banks can have 
serious repercussions on our Nation's banking economy and on the 
consumers in the State of Idaho.
  We do not have to look back very far in history, Mr. Chairman, to see 
the long-reaching effects of preempting State financial laws. Let us 
take, for example, the savings and loan or the thrift industry. Until 
1980, State-chartered thrifts outnumbered those of Federal charters. 
But in 1980, the Federal regulator issued a preemptive policy similar 
to the OCC's recent rulings. As a result, we have watched the number of 
State-chartered thrifts decline until they now make up less than 10 
percent of all of the thrifts in the country.
  Until 1980, in my State of Idaho we had five State-chartered thrifts. 
Today, all thrifts in Idaho have national charters. None have State 
charters. Since 1980, 14 banks have received new State commercial bank 
charters, but there has not been a single thrift chartered in the past 
24 years.
  Our economy in Idaho depends on small community banks. These banks 
serve the members in their communities and constantly improve the way 
we do business in America and through innovation and diversity. If we 
allow the OCC to tip the balance toward the national banks, we put 
consumers at risk. State and local agencies in Idaho are better 
equipped than any Federal bureaucracy to meet the needs and address the 
problems of Idahoans. Allowing our banking system to be dominated by a 
single Federal regulator would harm consumers and our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment. My 
apologies to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), because if 
this is the wrong place to make this correction, I would like to work 
with the chairman to make that correction in the proper place.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First I want to start by agreeing with something that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman) has said today, something that was 
published in the newspaper The American Banker this morning. He was 
talking about the amendment which he now brings to the floor. What he 
says about it is, ``This is a crazy way to do it.'' I would agree with 
that. It is, as he said, ``This is a crazy way to do it.''
  The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said this is an important 
issue. I agree with him; it is an important issue. It is one that ought 
to be debated. It is one that ought to be addressed. And, in fact, the 
Committee on Financial Services has had two hearings on this matter. 
Numerous Members, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), to name two, have 
introduced legislation to address this OCC issue. The committee is 
working on it.
  This particular amendment actually goes to the heart of the Committee 
on the Judiciary's jurisdiction. This is something that ought to be 
before the Committee on the Judiciary, because what it is, and I go 
back to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) says, and I 
agree with him, he says, what we are trying to do here is effectively 
pull the teeth out of the regulations. In other words, the OCC passed 
some regulations, he does not agree with those regulations, so he wants 
to effectively pull the teeth out of those regulations. Well, there are 
certain ways to do that. What he is doing is saying, so, I am going to 
prohibit the Justice Department from representing the OCC in court. But 
that is not the way to do it.
  If you disagree with the regulations, you have, one thing you have is 
the Congressional Review Act, and our colleague on this amendment 
actually filed legislation under that act to review this regulation, 
and that is the proper way to do this. As the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman) said, this is a crazy way to do it. This is a crazy 
amendment. It is a crazy way to do it.
  We have rules in this House. I have rules at my house. There are 
rules. We all have rules, and we need to go by those rules. We either 
need to change those rules, or we need to go by those rules.
  The place to address these issues, if we want to talk about whether 
the Justice Department ought to have the right to be a legal advocate 
for the OCC, and I sure hope that our governmental agencies, when they 
go into court as a representative of the people of the United States, I 
hope that they are going to have the right to legal counsel. If this 
amendment is passed, the OCC will be denied legal counsel. They will be 
denied Justice Department legal counsel. As the gentleman says, this is 
a crazy way to do it.
  The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) talked about something earlier 
that concerns all of us. We have State regulations, we have Federal 
regulations. They are both important. We ought to watch what we do in 
this regard. What ought to watch what we do when we preempt State 
regulations.
  He is concerned about the number of national charters as opposed to 
State charters, that the national charter appears to be getting more 
valuable. That is something that ought to be addressed, but you do not 
address that in an appropriations bill. You let the committees that 
have jurisdiction over these matters, which are the Committee on 
Financial Services, and they are having hearings on these matters; 
there is numerous pieces of legislation introduced, that is where we 
address it.
  I do not think any appropriators will vote for this particular 
legislation. If they do, I would say to them, this is authorizing 
legislation. Why would we support something like that in 
appropriations? Appropriators, and I say to all Members who are 
appropriators, you would not want the authorizing committee, you would 
not want the Committee on the Judiciary passing legislation 
appropriating funds for the Justice Department or the Commerce 
Department. Neither would you want the Committee on Financial Services 
to start making appropriations, and neither should the appropriating 
committee start doing authorizations. Members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means out there, they are charged with certain jurisdictions. The 
Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, all of 
these committees, that is where we authorize legislation. That is the 
rule. This amendment, although it is crafted in a way which simply says 
the OCC will be denied legal representation in court, which is a crazy 
thing, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the maker of 
this amendment, says, that is the only way that he could sort of bring 
this up to the body.
  And I will say this to my colleague: The fact he brought this out, he 
mentions it, he has said that it ought to be addressed, I commend the 
gentleman for that. But this is not the mechanism.
  I would say to any Member that votes for this, if you vote for this, 
you are voting really to disregard the rules and the structure of this 
whole body. If you serve on authorizing committees, you are basically 
saying it is okay for appropriators to authorize. If you vote for this 
legislation, you will say it is okay for the Committee on 
Appropriations to start doing the work of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. If you vote for this amendment, you will be saying I do not 
care if this is the Committee on Financial Service's matter, it is 
within their clear jurisdiction, but

[[Page H5372]]

I do not care, I am going to vote for it on an appropriations bill.
  What that will result in, if amendments like this continue to be 
brought up as they are, and that is why we are here for several days 
instead of addressing things that ought to be addressed in this bill, 
then this body will gravitate into mayhem.
  I urge my colleagues for the right reasons to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of this bipartisan amendment, which would provide no funds in the bill 
be used to defend the OCC preemption regulations in a court of law.
  Earlier this year, the OCC issued preemption rules that indicated 
that many State laws did not apply to national banks, did not apply to 
national banks, and State officials such as the attorneys general 
elected in each and every one of our States did not have authority over 
national banks and to help consumers.
  I think that is crazy. I think that is insane. And it does not defend 
the consumers.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Otter), and I and our staffs, with their inspiration and 
innovation, have brought this amendment to the floor because we want to 
defend consumers.
  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the OCC, regulates 
national banks. The name of the agency causes most people to think of 
it as the Mint or that it would be responsible for printing money. It 
is certainly not the agency that consumers think to call for help when 
a bank has violated the law, and perhaps it is because the OCC's 
Consumer Call Center is open only for business 28 hours a week and 
closed on Fridays. At least the attorneys general and your bank 
regulators in your States are open Monday through Friday, 40 hours a 
week, to defend consumers.

                              {time}  1530

  That is what the OCC thinks about consumer protections. They will not 
even defend you 5 days a week. When my constituents have a problem with 
the bank, they call the Illinois Attorney General, as I am sure in 
every other State people call their Attorneys General. But according to 
the OCC, the Attorney General has virtually no authority over the big 
powerful national banks. And that is wrong.
  I remember when the gentleman from Alabama came here talking about 
States right and saying they are the incubator of ideas. Everything is 
done better at the local level. Yet, the gentleman from Alabama comes 
here, and we should have struck his words, I will not, calling us crazy 
on five different occasions.
  It is not crazy to protect consumers. It is crazy not to protect 
consumers because that is our main responsibility, to defend the people 
and not to be quoting from the Bankers Journal. They publish that 
journal to defend their interests, and it should be our priority to 
defend the interests of consumers, as crazy as that may seem given all 
the special interest money that runs around the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully and reluctantly rise in 
opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), whom I respect.
  As a member of the Committee on Financial Services, I have been at 
numerous hearings that have been held on the issue of OCC preemption. 
What the OCC did in promulgating these regulations is well within, in 
my opinion, their scope as a regulator of national banks. But I believe 
the issue is bigger than that of the powers of national versus State 
chartered banks or the presumed powers of the OCC. The real question 
here deals with ensuring the greatest protections of all American 
banking consumers with respect to stopping abusive lending practices. 
And that is why I salute the OCC's actions.
  Our constituents have no idea where their bank is chartered, and they 
really do not care. But they really do care about protecting their 
money and their investments and keeping the access to capital free 
flowing. This action by the OCC will allow that to happen. For example, 
I know much has been made in Washington by some of my colleagues about 
a possible weakening of consumer protections between banks and their 
customers due to these OCC regulations. I disagree.
  The famous First Tennessee case in New York proves this point, as 
once the OCC entered the dialogue, the case resolved in favor of the 
consumer in a matter of days, and the customers' losses were refunded, 
and their legal bills paid. Additionally, with the powers the OCC has, 
including on-site examiners actually in the actual banks on a day-to-
day basis, they know the operations and the rules. They know how to 
make banks comply with them.
  Remember, it was not the FBI who caught Al Capone. It was the IRS. 
That is the same approach under which the OCC will approach its bad 
actors with its on-site staff that have the ability to shut down banks.
  Finally, these OCC regulations also created one uniform Federal 
standard for all national banks and their operating subsidiaries with 
respect to predatory lending as a way of creating a level playing field 
for all national banking customers.
  While I do believe these predatory lending regulations that have been 
put in place are weak at best, their establishment drives home the need 
for real action by this Congress this year to address predatory lending 
with a strong national law that governs lending at all financial 
institutions and their operating subsidiaries, regardless of where they 
are chartered.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The OCC gets its $500 million budget from the banks it regulates. It 
is financially accountable to the banks rather than Congress. That is 
why we had to offer an amendment dealing with the Department of 
Judiciary's budget. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), who 
spoke with such passion and wisdom just a second ago, introduced in our 
committee, when we expressed our budget views and estimates, language 
criticizing these OCC regulations. And that language passed 34 to 28 
with the support of the relevant subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  I would point out that now it is time for the Committee on Financial 
Services and this Congress not to just express our views but to 
legislate. That is why I will withdraw this amendment and hope that our 
committee will act instead of simply expressing views.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. Total appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced by 1 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of 
the House of yesterday, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an amendment I have offered on a great many appropriations 
bills over the last few years. In my desire to begin to get a grip on 
the deficit spending that we are doing now, and it is not a reflection 
on the chairman or the committee and the job they have done, there is a 
great deal of good in this bill; but I rise today to offer an amendment 
to cut by 1 percent the level of funding in this appropriations bill. 
For the CJS appropriations bill that amends amounts to $398 million, 
and that translates to one penny on every dollar we spend. One penny is 
all we are talking about on every dollar that we are spending.
  I recognize there are many important law enforcement provisions 
contained

[[Page H5373]]

within this bill, which is why I have structured my amendment using the 
Holman rule so that the administration may choose the accounts in which 
they want to reduce the spending in this bill. The tendency always is 
when you want to cut something or a Department is to say that the most 
desirable things are the things it will cut. No, it is not. The FBI 
that will get cut here or some of those law enforcement things, it will 
be the things that are the least important, if we do it in this way and 
under this particular rule.
  As most Members are aware, as I said earlier, I have introduced 
similar amendments that would have cut spending in other appropriations 
bills and I have plans to continue doing so in other appropriations 
bills that are brought to the floor. My amendments are intended to draw 
a line. The budget for fiscal year 2005 is too large. We have the power 
to do something about the budget deficit right now. By voting for my 
amendment, Members are stating to the American taxpayers they should 
not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we could not control 
spending today.
  Our budgets would be no different than the taxpayers' budgets at 
home. When we have less money, we simply need to spend less money, and 
there are plenty of places within the Federal budget where we are 
spending money that clearly does not make any sense whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this 1 percent cut in the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  The amendment would take $400 million from the bill. As you can see 
from the debate, other Members feel that the funding for a host of 
programs is inadequate. The budget resolution passed by the House, we 
are within that budget resolution. The bill we are considering stays 
well within it. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close 
to the bone. For a number of reasons that other people would realize, 
we urge strong opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is not a member of this Congress that is more conscientious or 
more concerned about the deficit than the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I have the highest respect for 
him. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that we can find one penny on the 
dollar to cut in this particular appropriations bill. I would ask for 
an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill was put together by two staffs and two 
members in a very tight situation with a very low allocation. As I have 
said on many occasions during this debate, I think the bill is fair, 
but we know it is tight. And this is a large amount of money to take 
out of this bill, especially across the board, without any 
consideration to all the negotiations that went in to putting the bill 
together.
  I just think it is a bad idea, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on this amendment are postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner:
       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 in contravention of the provisions of section 214(d) 
     of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 
     (Public Law 107-228).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of 
the House of yesterday, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I will not take the full 5 minutes. As a member of the Democratic 
baseball team, we have a date with destiny shortly.
  I just wanted to explain the amendment, and then I will yield back my 
time.
  This Congress in the 2003 State Department Authorization Act said 
that once and for all, any documents like passports and the like that 
refer to Jerusalem have to say the country. It is the only instance in 
our Nation where it says a city but it does not refer to the country, a 
strange form of record keeping that we clarify.
  There are now some lawsuits from people who are trying to enforce 
that law that this Congress passed overwhelmingly, and the Justice 
Department and the State Department are fighting those suits. Mine 
would be an amendment saying that no funds can be used to stop 
Congress's will from being put into place. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment reiterates current law. We have no objection, and we 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); 
amendment No. 20 by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin); amendment 
No. 23 by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King); the amendment by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith); the amendment by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); the amendment by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 210, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers

[[Page H5374]]


     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lofgren
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SANDERS (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is allowed for a vote to be 
cast? My understanding is 17 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The minimum time for electroic voting on this question 
is 15 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will the gentleman tell me how much time has expired on 
this vote at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. Longer than the minimum time.
  Mr. SANDERS. My understanding is over 24 minutes have expired.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NADLER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. My parliamentary inquiry is twofold. How much time has 
elapsed on this vote, and how much time will be allowed on this vote 
beyond what the rules provide for? How much time has elapsed on this 
vote? The time has expired.
  How much time has elapsed on this vote? Are we going to hold this 
vote open until enough arms are twisted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would attempt to respond to the parliamentary 
inquiry. The minimum time for this electronic vote, as stated earlier, 
is 15 minutes. And, as always, if there are Members in the well 
attempting to vote, the vote will remain open.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NADLER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. I have two parliamentary inquiries. One you did not 
answer I asked before. How much time has elapsed on this vote so far? 
Not the minimum. How much time so far has elapsed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat that the minimum requirement is 
15 minutes. That has elapsed.
  Mr. NADLER. That was not my question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time elapsed thus far is 29 minutes. As long as 
there are Members wishing to vote in the well, the vote will remain 
open.
  Mr. NADLER. My second question, sir, is I do not see anyone in the 
well waiting to vote. Is there anyone in the well waiting to vote?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a previous response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Chair stated the vote would remain open as long as there 
were Members in the well wishing to vote. That case does not exist at 
this time, so when will the Chair be gaveling this vote down?
  Mr. Chairman, apparently the basis for the Chair's response before is 
no longer true. Members are not in the well wishing to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the rules state 
that the vote shall be open for a minimum of 15 minutes, and as long as 
there are Members in the well to vote, the vote will remain open.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how long has the vote been open?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is about to ask if any Member wishes to 
change his or her vote, so that changes may be reported.

                              {time}  1622

  Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. CUBIN, Messrs. GILCHREST, BEREUTER, TOM DAVIS of 
Virginia, BILIRAKIS, KINGSTON, SMITH of Michigan, BISHOP of Utah, WAMP, 
TANCREDO and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ACKERMAN, LANGEVIN, ALEXANDER, CRAMER, and SHERMAN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Akin

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H5375]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 306, 
noes 113, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--306

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

                               NOES--113

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Berman
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Sanders
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1631

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. HOLDEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139, 
noes 278, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 341]

                               AYES--139

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge

[[Page H5376]]


     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     LaHood
     Napolitano
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1639

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 341, had I been 
present, I would have noted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 291, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--129

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--291

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1647

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
regarding the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H5377]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 67, 
noes 347, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                                AYES--67

     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--347

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jones (OH)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Tauzin
     Weller


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1654

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 343 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
regarding an across-the-board cut of total appropriations, on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 327, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 344]

                                AYES--81

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston

[[Page H5378]]


     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Eshoo
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Isakson
     Kaptur
     LaHood
     Lipinski
     Quinn
     Ryan (OH)
     Stupak
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1701

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work of the members 
of the committee, and of Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Jose 
Serrano on H.R. 4754.
  Caseloads for U.S. district judges in Nebraska have climbed steadily. 
In fact, criminal cases have more than doubled since 1995.
  Like many other states in the Midwest, Nebraska has been plagued in 
recent years by an influx of methamphetamine (meth), and criminal cases 
involving meth represent a significant increase in Nebraska's drug 
docket.
  Interstate 80, which runs the length of the state of Nebraska, is one 
of the primary transit routes used for drug trafficking across the 
central United States.
  Nebraska's ability to prosecute interstate drug trafficking affects 
the whole country.
  In fact, Nebraska's judges carry a heavier criminal caseload than 
judges in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am grateful for the increased funding provided 
in this bill for the federal court system, the substantial increase in 
Nebraska's criminal trials leaves Nebraska's federal judges with 
impossibly heavy caseloads.
  I also appreciate the generous funding the CJSJ committee has 
allocated in the last several years towards fighting meth in Nebraska. 
These funds have made a significant difference.
  My colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, has introduced H.R. 4301, 
to authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
Nebraska.
  The Senate has already passed legislation that included Nebraska in 
the list of judgeships to be made permanent and I am hopeful the House 
will do the same.
  A fourth judgeship is critically important to Nebraska, and without 
it, criminal cases will move more slowly and handling civil cases will 
become increasingly burdensome.
  I support and urge passage of the underlying appropriations bill and 
I look forward to continuing to work with the authorizing committee to 
address the judgeship issue in Nebraska.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Flake-
Davis-Emerson-Delahunt amendment to the Commerce, State & Justice 
Appropriations bill. This bipartisan amendment would de-fund Commerce 
Department enforcement of its new anti-family regulations. These 
regulations set greater limitations on gift parcels that Cuban-
Americans are allowed to send to their family members. Gift parcels are 
no longer allowed to contain such humanitarian aid items as clothing, 
seeds, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicines and supplies, 
fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment. 
Additionally, this regulation limits the delivery of gift parcels to 
Cuba to once per month per household, instead of once per month per 
individual recipient. The gift parcels can only be sent to the 
immediate family of a donor: grandparents, grandchildren, parents, 
siblings, spouses or children. All cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, or 
nephews, or in-laws are excluded.
  According to the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, appointed 
by President Bush, gift parcels ``decrease the burden of the Castro 
regime to provide for the basic needs of its people'' which therefore 
allows the regime to ``dedicate more of its limited resources to 
strengthening its repressive apparatus.'' This is ludicrous. The 
reality is that there are many Cubans living in poverty whose only way 
of getting necessary living materails--soap, clothes, sustenance 
supplies--is through gift parcels from their relatives residing in the 
United States.
  This regulation is a human rights travesty; it directly hurts Cuban 
people and their concerned Cuban-American relatives. Family ties 
stretch across borders, despite foreign policy mandates, and denying 
family members from sending aid to their relatives does not only show 
complete disregard to the value of human rights, but also to the value 
of the family institution. Support the Flake-Davis-Emerson-Delahunt 
amendment to de-fund Commerce Department enforcement of its anti-family 
regulations.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of 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. This bill includes a 
very important amendment that will address the inaccessibility to 
affordable capital for small businesses. This bill also includes 
important funding increases for the Drug Enforcement Administration and 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  One of the biggest problems that small businesses in Puerto Rico and 
on the mainland face is access to affordable capital. The 7(a) loan 
program is the Small Business Administrations' core lending program and 
accounts for roughly 30 percent of all long-term small business 
borrowing in America. This public-private partnership provides 
important financing for our nation's small business at a good value for 
the American taxpayer. This means there can be more loans, more small 
businesses and greater job creation. These loans are the only source of 
affordable, long-term financing for many of our nation's small 
businesses. The continuation of this program is fundamental to a sound 
economic recovery.
  The CJS Appropriations Act also includes $1.66 billion for the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. This represents a $77 million increase 
above the Fiscal Year '04 funding. These funds will go to keep drugs 
off our streets and out of the hands of our children. Additionally, it 
contains $870 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, representing a $43 million increase over fiscal 2004 
funding. These necessary additions will provide for a safer society.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the passage of H.R. 4754.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of 
this bill.
  Parts of the bill advance good policy.
  The most welcome provision in the bill is the $106 million included 
for the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), a program the 
Administration has tried to eliminate for several years. Last year, MEP 
served more than 18,000 small manufacturers across the country. In 
2002, MEP assistance resulted in $2.79 billion in increased/retained 
sales, $681 million in cost savings, $940 million investment in 
modernization, and 32,000 jobs created and retained. Every federal 
dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in state and private-sector 
funding, which means that a small federal investment of $106 million 
translates into billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in 
terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. While it is 
overdue, the appropriators' acknowledgement of MEP's importance is 
welcome--especially as manufacturers continue to experience tough 
economic times.
  The bill also provides essential funding for the Department of 
Justice, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as 
for Office of Justice programs such as the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance program.
  The bill improves on the President's request in some cases. It 
includes funding for the

[[Page H5379]]

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and state and local 
law enforcement assistance--less than the current funding level for 
these programs, but at much higher levels than the request. I do hope 
that conferees will see fit to increase funding to current levels for 
these programs in the final version of the bill.
  On the international side, I'm pleased that the bill increases 
funding for education and cultural exchange programs, which are the 
most effective public diplomacy programs we can fund, and that it 
directs the State Department to establish a new permanent office to 
plan for reconstruction and post-conflict stability, making clear the 
preeminent role of the State Department--not the Pentagon--in such 
planning.
  The bill also includes important language prohibiting any funds from 
being used in any way to support or justify the use of torture by any 
U.S. government official or contract employee. It also directs the 
Justice Department's Inspector General to submit a report to Congress 
detailing all internal and interagency documents regarding the 
obligation to the U.S. under the Geneva Conventions and related 
international agreements. I'm glad that the House supports this 
critical provision on a bipartisan basis, as the Administration to date 
has refused to provide these documents.
  But I only reluctantly support this bill for the reasons I have 
expressed year after year--namely, that it attacks the Department of 
Commerce laboratories in my district in Colorado, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  The trend of cutting these agencies to the bone continues. It 
continues not because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but 
because the Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money 
to go around.
  Under the bill as it stands, the NIST and NOAA laboratories will see 
more jobs lost and more cuts in funding. The bill cuts NIST fully 15 
percent from last year's levels. Funding for NIST's Scientific and 
Technical Research and Services (STRS)--at $376 million--is at least 9 
percent below the request. Never mind that the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act, which the House will pass this week, includes $425 
million in FY2005 for STRS. The bill includes funding for important 
construction projects, but at levels 18 percent below the request.
  The bill reduces NOAA funding by $543 million--a 15 percent cut from 
FY2004 levels. The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), 
which funds the important work being conducted in the labs in my 
district, is funded at $319 million in the bill--12 percent below the 
request level, and 16 percent below FY2004 levels. The bill zeros out 
funding for Abrupt Climate Research and Paleoclimate research, and the 
overall NOAA budget for climate and global change research has been 
reduced by an additional $6 million. These NOAA research programs are 
vital to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change--
something the president has said is a priority for his administration.
  In addition to concerns about reduced funding for NOAA, I am also 
concerned about language included in the bill's report. The report 
notes: ``The Committee continues to believe that resource limitations 
require NOAA to act expeditiously on laboratory consolidation. The 
Research Review Team report provides a necessary first step toward 
rationalization of the enterprise-wide research effort.'' As far as I 
am aware, the Committee has never provided a definition for 
``laboratory consolidation.'' If done because of ``resource 
limitations,'' it seems to me that ``consolidation'' is just a code 
word for program elimination. I will continue to fight to ensure that 
before NOAA takes any steps in this direction, it must provide Congress 
with further explanation as to the reasons for and outcomes expected 
from such action.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly I have deep concerns about the parts of this 
bill that affect my district and that affect science and technology 
funding at the Department of Commerce. But the bill includes funding 
for many other deserving programs. So I will vote for this bill, and 
will work to see that it is improved in conference.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Paul Amendment 
on UNESCO.
  During a speech before the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, 
President Bush announced that the United States would return to UNESCO. 
I support the President's decision, and I oppose efforts to prohibit 
funding to the organization.
  Rejoining UNESCO reflects our national understanding that the body 
has a decisive role in advancing U.S. foreign policy goals. These goals 
include promoting education and understanding in areas of the world 
where desperate populations are susceptible to the preaching of those 
who would seek to destroy our Nation.
  UNESCO is actively pursuing the UN's Millennium Development Goals, 
including achieving universal primary education in all countries by 
2015; eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education 
by 2005; helping countries implement a national strategy for 
sustainable development by 2005; and reversing current trends in the 
loss of environmental resources by 2015.
  Why wouldn't the United States want to be an active participant and 
contributor to this process?
  We've debated these issues, and this body has decided the United 
States should continue to be a member in good standing at the UN and 
rejoin UNESCO.
  Prohibiting funding sends a particularly bad message to the global 
community at a time when international support is needed for many of 
our initiatives, including the war on terror.
  As a contributor and participant, the United States is granted owner 
to influence UNESCO's goals, programs and management. We should not 
pass up that opportunity.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the House of Representatives 
narrowly defeated an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, 
Justice and State Appropriations bill that would have increased funding 
for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program by $106 
million.
  I voted in favor of this amendment because I believe it is critical 
to restore cuts that this bill makes to the COPS program. COPS has been 
a critical part of our nation's effort to put more police officers on 
the streets in order to reduce crime and improve homeland security. 
Given the increased security needs our country faces, there is no 
question that the COPS program is needed now more than ever.
  This was a difficult vote because funding to pay for this amendment 
was taken from the Census Bureau, which is charged with the important 
responsibility of counting the American population. I fully support the 
mission of the Census Bureau. It is particularly important to ensure 
that the Bureau has the resources it needs to count hard-to-find 
populations, including Native Americans in South Dakota. Because of 
inadequate housing and high levels of poverty, Native Americans are 
traditionally undercounted by the Census. This means that they often do 
not receive their fair share of federal resources desperately needed to 
provide jobs, health care and education.
  It is important to note that this bill provides the Census Bureau 
with a $149 million increase in funding over last year's level. The 
amendment would have shifted $106 million of these funds to the COPS 
program, thus restoring COPS to last year's level of funding while 
still providing the Census Bureau with an overall increase in funding. 
I felt that this approach was fair, and that it would improve homeland 
security and public safety while still ensuring that the Census can 
carry out its mission.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
disappointment with the wholly inadequate level of funding in the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill for 
Fiscal Year 2005 for grants to combat violence against women. Women in 
this country are in the midst of a crisis, continuing to be terrorized 
by sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking, and the situation 
is not getting much better. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, at least one out of every six women and girls 
in the United States will have been beaten or sexually abused in her 
lifetime.
  So what is the Republican leadership's response? According to this 
bill, it is to cut funding for grants to states to combat violence 
against women. This bill closely follows the President's request and 
cuts VAWA funding by 1 percent from last year's levels down to $383.5 
million. Funding for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs in the 
Department of Justice, programs which serve to protect older and 
disabled women from violence, to provide transitional housing for women 
fleeing abusive partners, to protect students on campus from sexual 
assault, to reduce stalking, remains $55 million short of full funding. 
this is simply unacceptable.
  We have the money in this country to help every women who is raped, 
to provide counseling and services to every family trying to overcome 
domestic violence, to train police officers to help victims of 
stalking--yet the President's budget chooses not to do this. Instead, 
the Republican majority chooses to spend more of our money on tax cuts 
for the wealthy.
  I go back to my district and I see women who have worked so hard to 
survive domestic abuse and sexual assault. I meet families who have 
lost a mother or a sister to domestic violence. When they ask me--what 
is my government doing to help me? What is my government doing to make 
sure this doesn't happen to another woman?--I will have to tell them 
that the government is not doing nearly enough. The Republican 
leadership is cutting funding for programs to prevent violence against 
women. This is a disgrace.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, while I rise in support of the FY05 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed 
in

[[Page H5380]]

the significant cuts proposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration budget.
  As you know, the 23rd Congressional District, on California's Central 
Coast, is an incredibly diverse and productive coastal and marine area.
  Tourism and commercial and recreational fishing are major industries 
on the Central Coast and a staple of our local economy. The money spent 
by tourists and the fish caught by fisherman pay the bills and put food 
on the table for the people living in these communities.
  Unfortunately, they know better than anyone that our oceans and 
coasts are facing a greater array of problems than ever before.
  The impact of coastal development, pollution and some fishing 
practices have led to declining prospects for many of our oceans, 
coasts and marine life.
  With the recent release of the Pew Oceans Commission report and the 
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report, we have an unprecedented 
opportunity to move forward to dramatically reform ocean policy.
  That's why investment in our nation's coasts and oceans is needed 
now.
  Sadly, the bill before us proposes over $400 million in cuts--that's 
a 15 percent cut--to the agency in charge of caring for and managing 
these assets. I am particularly worried by the decrease in funds 
proposed for the National Ocean Service and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
  The National Ocean Service is the primary federal agency working to 
protect and manage America's coastal waters and habitats. 
Unfortunately, this bill proposes a debilitating cut of $160 million 
from 2004 enacted levels.
  Critical National Ocean Service programs have been severely cut, 
including activities that support managing coastal zones and national 
marine sanctuaries, restoring coral reefs, protecting sensitive coastal 
estuaries and reducing coastal pollution.
  These cuts will cripple the agency and will impact all Americans who 
use our beaches and coastal waters for swimming, boating and 
recreation, in addition to threatening the 3 million U.S. jobs that our 
coasts and oceans support.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned by the proposed cuts to the 
National Marine Fisheries Service. The $96 million in cuts from the 
2004 enacted level will further jeopardize our already troubled 
commercial and recreational fisheries.
  While the bill does provide additional funds for expanding fisheries 
stock assessments, it fails to make available critical dollars for 
fishery observer programs, cooperative research, essential fish habitat 
protection, and efforts to conserve protected species like marine 
mammals and sea turtles.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Subcommittee has difficult choices to 
make this year. And, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's 
commitment to work toward rectifying the funding levels for NOAA in the 
final bill.
  However, the verdict is in--our oceans and coasts are in trouble.
  We need to invest in our oceans to ensure that future generations 
will be able to enjoy clean beaches, healthy seafood, abundant ocean 
wildlife, and thriving coastal communities.
  As we move into conference, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Subcommittee to address the challenges and threats 
confronting our oceans and coasts.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, today this House considers the Commerce, 
Justice, and State Appropriations bill. I rise to speak on the Commerce 
portion of the bill--and more specifically, the massive cuts in funding 
for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs.
  Sadly, the bill we debate today cuts NOAA funding by 15 percent when 
compared to fiscal year 2004 levels. The decision to cut the funding of 
vital NOAA programs flies in the face of two in-depth oceans studies, 
The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the 
Pew Oceans Commission Report, both released during the past year. These 
two reports document the crises facing our oceans--crises, as noted by 
the reports, which require attention now. Today. Unfortunately, instead 
of using the findings of the two reports to take steps forward, we will 
in fact be taking many steps backward if we decide to under-fund NOAA 
programs, especially those within the National Ocean Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
  Before I speak about some of the specific programs hardest hit, I 
want to thank CJS Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for the 
commitment they made during full committee mark-up to work to increase 
the funding levels for conservation programs, particularly programs 
within the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, during conference with the Senate. I am grateful that they 
have acknowledged the importance of increasing the funding levels. I 
also thank Ranking Member Obey for stating his concerns regarding the 
NOAA funding cuts.
  As a co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I helped to lead a bi-
partisan letter than garnered a total of 59 signatures supporting a 
variety of NOAA programs, including state coastal zone management 
grants, coastal nonpoint and community resource grants, the national 
estuarine research reserve system, the coastal and estuarine land 
conservation program, the national marine sanctuary system, coral reef 
conservation, ocean exploration, fisheries research and observer 
programs, marine mammal protection, and invasive species initiatives, 
among others. This letter was not for parochial projects; it was for 
national programs for this Country's largest public trust resource--our 
oceans. Despite this letter, the bill in front of us today actually 
cuts the funding levels of many of the programs we specifically noted 
were important to protect.
  Mr. Chairman, let me highlight some of the most severe cuts and 
briefly discuss the likely consequences of the cuts.
  When combining the cuts from decreases in coastal zone management 
grants and coastal nonpoint pollution grants--both of which are 
important to state efforts to address threats to the coastal ocean--
many states will be left scrambling. For example, Florida will have a 
net loss of $345,000; Virginia a net loss of $620,000; and my state of 
California will lose $620,000. These numbers may not seem like high 
dollar amounts since we are used to dealing in millions; however, the 
states rely on these funds and it is unfortunate that we can't provide 
them.
  Cooperative Fisheries Research programs have been dealt a huge blow--
going from an FY04 enacted level of $19.9 million to $5 million in the 
bill before us. Cooperative Research programs bring scientists together 
with the fishing community to foster trust and to conduct collaborative 
studies aimed at better understanding our fisheries resources. If we 
are serious about resolving over-fishing issues, we cannot afford to 
cut a program that brings together the critical players.
  Lastly, I am deeply concerned by the funding levels for marine mammal 
protection. Under the funding levels put forth in the bill, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top priority 
studies as identified by the multi-stakeholder Take Reduction Teams; 
the agency won't be able to conduct research on marine mammal 
population trends, health, and demographics; and sadly, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to carry out marine mammal 
education or enforcement programs. Another unfortunate aspect of the 
bill in front of us today is that funding for the marine mammal health 
and stranding response program was zeroed out last year and the funds 
were not restored in this year's bill. This program funds 
investigations of die-offs of large numbers of marine mammals, 
including a recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida that involved 
more than 100 animals. Without the restoration of this program, we lose 
the opportunity to study marine mammals during die-off events.
  Mr. Chairman, our oceans are this Country's largest public trust 
resource. When are we going to start treating them as such in this 
chamber, including adequately funding ocean programs? Our job is to 
ensure a future in which our oceans remain vital components of our 
economy, our communities, and our lives. To do this, we must fund NOAA 
programs today.
  Despite concerns by my constituents, many of whom are members of the 
more than 24 national organizations that signed a letter delivered to 
every member of the House urging a commitment for increasing NOAA 
funding, I am dedicated to moving this bill forward. Both the chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee have given me their commitment 
to work diligently to increase the funding levels for the NOAA programs 
hardest hit by today's bill. I sincerely appreciate their commitment 
and look forward to working with them. However, in the future, I hope 
that this House will adequately fund NOAA programs so that we don't 
find ourselves depending on the good will of the Senate to increase the 
funding levels of programs that so many of our constituents care so 
deeply about.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake, 
Davis, Emerson, Delahunt amendment.
  The Bush Administration recently announced a series of measures that 
tighten restrictions on travel to Cuba, and further limit the items 
that Cuban-Americans can send to their relatives on the island.
  Mr. Chairman, it is inhumane and un-American to prevent Cuban-
Americans from sending clothing and personal hygiene items to their 
relatives in Cuba. These restrictions deny the rights of Americans to 
help their families in Cuba who rely on packages from the United States 
to provide things that they cannot get at home.
  Ironically, like the ongoing travel ban and embarge, these 
restrictions will do little to harm the Castro regime.

[[Page H5381]]

  Our Cuba policy should not be built on punishing families and 
limiting the rights of Americans. We should support more family contact 
between Cubans and Americans and endorse a strategy of engagement. 
These latest restrictions may have some electoral impact in Florida, 
but 40 years of failure prove they will not loosen Fidel Castro's grip 
on power. We should reject these new restrictions and vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this very harmful 
amendment, the Paul Amendment on U.N. funding.
  In the early 1990s, because of concerns about United Nation's 
operations and the lack of reforms by that body, the United States 
began withholding its payments to the U.N. and fell into arrears.
  We subsequently debated this issue for years, and, in November 1999, 
Congress and the Administration finally agreed on a plan to repay our 
longstanding debt to the U.N. in exchange for significant reforms by 
the world body.
  This agreement conditioned U.S. payments of $819 million on 
substantial reforms at the U.N. In return for the United States making 
good on its commitment, the U.N. reduced our contributions to its 
regular budget from 25 to 20 percent, and to the peacekeeping budget 
from 31 to 25 percent. The U.N. also agreed to open up its financial 
books to the United States and to establish an office of an Inspector 
General at each of its program offices.
  We've debated these issues, and this body has decided the United 
States should continue to be a member in good standing at the U.N. This 
amendment would send us back to a debate settled more than three years 
ago.
  Mr. Chairman, as the U.N.'s single largest contributor, the United 
States is granted unparalleled power to craft the U.N.'s agenda and 
budget. Our financial leadership truly gives us the ability to shape 
world events.
  Countries all over the world are looking to the United States for 
leadership, yet if this amendment were to pass, what they would see is 
a very powerful and wealthy country refusing to live up to its 
international commitments. Why, as a nation, would we want to 
unnecessarily complicate our diplomatic efforts at a time when we need 
every ounce of leverage?
  While we must continue examining its operations and recommending 
operational improvements, the United Nations deserves U.S. support as 
it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist 
countries in moving towards democracy.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  The Clerk will read the last three lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2005''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) 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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 701, he reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1701


                Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer of Maryland moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     4754, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the bill forthwith with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to make an application under section 501 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861) for an order requiring the production of library 
     circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet 
     records, book sales records, or book customer lists.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, some time ago we passed an act. It was called 
the PATRIOT Act. It was voted upon by the overwhelming majority of us. 
The objective then was to ensure the safety of democracy and the 
survival of freedom. That was the objective of the PATRIOT Act.
  Now, there are many in this House, indeed the majority, who believed 
that there were provisions in that act that undermined democracy. The 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Otter) and others raised a very specific provision of that PATRIOT Act 
as undermining of our democracy, of our civil liberties, and of our 
freedom.
  The vote was called on that amendment, and at the expiration of 15 
minutes, the majority of the House indicated that they supported the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and others. And then the vote 
continued, and it continued, and it continued, for over twice as long 
as the Speaker of the House early this year indicated votes would be 
held; indeed, for 38 minutes.
  Now, I say to my colleagues, let me remind my colleagues of the 
remarks of our Vice President in 1987, when a similar tactic was 
employed, and I am quoting the remarks of the Vice President of the 
United States, Richard Cheney, who at that point in time was a Member 
of this House. ``The Democrats,'' he said, ``have just performed the 
most grievous insult inflicted on Republicans in my time in the House, 
a vote held open for a shorter period of time.'' He went on to say that 
it was ``the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever 
seen in the 10 years that I have been here.'' He went on to say, 
referring to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at that time, 
Jim Wright from the State of Texas, ``He is a heavy-handed son,'' and I 
will delete the next two words, ``and he doesn't know any other way to 
operate, and he will do anything he can to win at any price. There is 
no sense of comity left,'' said the Vice President, Dick Cheney, then a 
Member of the House of Representatives.
  Perhaps he felt better after he said that.
  But my friends, if you campaign on changing the tone in Washington, 
if your objective was to bring comity to this House, if your objective, 
by voting for the PATRIOT Act, was to protect democracy, then protect 
it here. Protect it here in the People's House. Protect it here where 
every one of you has an opportunity to say that we will have a fair 
vote in a fair time frame, and the majority will prevail, not the 
intimidated will prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the 
sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the 191 Democrats 
and 18 Republicans who voted for that important amendment, but I am not 
going to discuss the substance of that amendment, because that debate 
took place, and I respect the people on both sides of that debate.
  But what I do not respect is that when we are having a debate about 
basic American democratic rights and what our Constitution is supposed 
to be, I resent bitterly, on behalf of the American people, that the 
Republican leadership rigged the game. That is wrong. At the end of 
nine innings of a baseball game, at the end of nine innings of a 
baseball game, the team that has the most runs wins. At the end of the 
17 minutes tonight, our side won, and it was not even close.
  Now, what kind of lesson, what kind of lesson are we showing the 
children of America when we tell them, get involved in the political 
process, that we are a free country, that we are fighting

[[Page H5382]]

abroad for democracy, when we rig a vote on this floor? Shame, shame, 
shame.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I will just make one comment, and then I will 
yield to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I want to read a letter that came out today. I wish it had come up 
yesterday and the day before, but it did not. I think every Member 
ought to know; it deals with the Sanders amendment. Here is what it 
says.
  It says: ``Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner. In anticipation of the U.S. 
House of Representatives' consideration of an amendment that would 
prevent the Justice Department from obtaining records from public 
libraries and book stores under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
your staff has recently inquired about whether terrorists have ever 
utilized public library facilities to communicate with others about 
committing acts of terrorism. The short answer is `Yes.' ''
  And then they go on to say, ``You should know we have confirmed that, 
as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist 
group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided 
by a public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to 
communicate with his confederates. Beyond this, we are unable to 
comment.''
  I wish the Justice Department letter had really come up yesterday or 
the day before so all Members could have been able to see it before the 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit should be 
defeated as the amendment was defeated, and the reason is that section 
215, which this amendment proposes to defund, provides more rights to 
public libraries and booksellers than a grand jury subpoena would. Let 
us look at what section 215 does.
  First, it requires the FBI to get a court order. To get a court 
order, a judge has to be convinced that the court order is necessary, 
and the burden of proof is on the Justice Department.
  The section has a narrow scope. It can only be used to obtain foreign 
intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to 
protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 
activities. That is what this motion to recommit proposes to do away 
with.
  So the people who are being protected are not United States persons, 
and people who are engaged in international terrorism or clandestine 
intelligence activities.
  Section 215 cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes or even 
domestic terrorists.
  The section preserves first amendment rights, and it expressly 
provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations of United States 
persons solely on the basis of activities protected by the first 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Now, if section 215 goes down, then the Justice Department can get a 
grand jury subpoena. Now, with a grand jury subpoena, there is no court 
order, there is no court review, and the person who receives the grand 
jury subpoena, a librarian or a bookseller, if you will, has to spend 
thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer at their expense to make a motion 
to quash the subpoena in the United States district court. And the 
burden of proof is on the bookseller or the librarian who wants to have 
the subpoena quashed.
  I would submit to my colleagues that if we look at what this 
amendment proposes to get rid of, it gets rid of a procedure that 
grants more protection to booksellers and is of much narrower scope 
than the alternative of the grand jury subpoena.
  Let us use common sense and not emotion and vote this motion to 
recommit down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote on final 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 223, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula

[[Page H5383]]


     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lofgren
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Isakson
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Tauzin
     Turner (TX)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are reminded there are 2 minutes to cast their votes.

                              {time}  1732

  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397, 
nays 18, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               YEAS--397

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--18

     Capuano
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Jones (NC)
     Miller (FL)
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Petri
     Shadegg
     Taylor (MS)
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bell
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Cox
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Isakson
     Johnson, E. B.
     LaHood
     Quinn
     Tauzin
     Turner (TX)
     Waxman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are advised 2 minutes remain in which to cast their votes.

                              {time}  1739

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________