[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.
____________________