Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 79 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4494-H4553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2006

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 314 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. 2862.

{time} 1040

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. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments
of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, 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 Tuesday, June
14, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett)
had been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 22,
line 14 through page 25, line 17.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18,
19 and 21;
An amendment printed in the Record and numbered 2, which shall be
debatable for 15 minutes;
An amendment printed in the Record and numbered 6, which shall be
debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Wolf, regarding funding levels;
An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding implementation of laws on
medical marijuana, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Markey, regarding limitation on funds for
torture, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Nadler, regarding health insurance records under
the PATRIOT Act, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Sanders, regarding FISA applications under the
PATRIOT Act, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Schiff, regarding protection of the Federal
judiciary;
An amendment by Mr. Cardin, regarding WTO action against China for
currency manipulation;
An amendment by Mr. Mica, regarding U.S. and Commercial Service
funding;
An amendment by Mr. Shimkus or Ms. Eshoo, regarding NTIA funding;
An amendment by Mr. Inslee, regarding NOAA Coastal Zone Management
Program;
An amendment by Mr. Fossella or Mr. King of New York, regarding U.S.
fugitives residing in Cuba;
An amendment by Mr. Flake, regarding educational cultural exchanges;
An amendment by Mr. Flake, regarding goods to Cuba, which shall be
debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding data on racial
distribution of convictions;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding affirmances by
immigration judges;
An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia, regarding export licenses for
firearms;
An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave, regarding NASA Hollywood liaison;
An amendment by Mr. Otter, regarding delaying notice on search
warrants;
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa, regarding implementation of section
642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996;
An amendment by Mr. Schiff, regarding DNA collection from convicted
felons;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding safety
requirements for the space shuttle and the international space station;
An amendment by Mrs. Jones of Ohio, regarding EEOC;
An amendment by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, regarding SBA funding;
An amendment by Mr. Weiner, regarding State and local law enforcement
funding;
An amendment by Mr. Hayworth, regarding U.N. funding;
An amendment by Mr. McDermott, regarding travel to Cuba;
An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding torture of human rights
activists.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the
request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the
Record or a designee; shall be considered read; shall not be subject to
amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Science, State,
Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma
amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.

{time} 1045

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
title I of the bill through page 34, line 11, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

Weed and Seed Program Fund

For necessary expenses, including salaries and related
expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to
implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $50,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007, for inter-
governmental agreements, including grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts, with State and local law
enforcement agencies, non-profit organizations, and agencies
of local government engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of violent and gang-related crimes and drug
offenses in ``Weed and Seed'' designated communities, and for
either reimbursements or transfers to appropriation accounts
of the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies which
shall be specified by the Attorney General to execute the
``Weed and Seed'' program strategy: Provided, That funds
designated by Congress through language for other Department
of Justice appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed''
program activities shall be managed and executed by the
Attorney General through the Executive Office for Weed and
Seed: Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct
the use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in
support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after
the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for the Executive Office for
Weed and Seed, not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be directed for
comprehensive community development training and technical
assistance.

community oriented policing services

For activities athorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (including
administrative costs), $520,057,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the funds under this
heading, not to exceed $2,575,000 shall be available for the
Office of Justice Programs for reimbursable services
associated with programs administered by the Community
Oriented Policing Services Office: Provided further, That
section 1703(b) and (c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act'') shall not apply to
non-hiring grants made pursuant to part Q of title I thereof
(42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.): Provided further, That up to
$29,000,000 of balances made available as a result of prior
year deobligations may be obligated for program management
and administration: Provided further, That any balances made
available as a result of prior

[[Page H4495]]

year deobligations in excess of $29,000,000 shall only be
obligated in accordance with section 605 of this Act. Of the
amounts provided--
(1) $30,000,000 is for the matching grant program for law
enforcement armor vests as authorized by section 2501 of part
Y of the 1968 Act, of which not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be
for the National Institute of Justice to test and evaluate
vests;
(2) $60,000,000 is for policing initiatives to combat
methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance
policing initiatives in ``drug hot spots'';
(3) $120,000,000 is for a law enforcement technologies and
interoperable communications program;
(4) $25,000,000 is for grants to upgrade criminal records,
as authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601);
(5) $10,000,000 is for an offender re-entry program;
(6) $177,057,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement program, and for other State, local and Federal
forensic activities;
(7) $38,000,000 is for law enforcement assistance to Indian
tribes; and
(8) $60,000,000 for a national program to reduce gang
violence.

Juvenile Justice Programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the Act''), and other juvenile
justice programs, including salaries and expenses in
connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Justice Assistance, $333,712,000, to
remain available until expended, as follows--
(1) $712,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as
authorized by section 204 of the Act;
(2) $83,000,000 for State and local programs authorized by
section 221 of the Act, including training and technical
assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the
Federal grants process;
(3) $70,000,000 for demonstration projects, as authorized
by sections 261 and 262 of the Act;
(4) $5,000,000 for juvenile mentoring programs;
(5) $80,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized
by section 505 of the Act, of which--
(A) $10,000,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program;
(B) $25,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education
and training program; and
(C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each
State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary
grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce
State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance
and training;
(6) $5,000,000 for Project Childsafe;
(7) $15,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act as
authorized by Public Law 106-386;
(8) $15,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
(9) $60,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grants program as authorized by Public Law 107-273 and Guam
shall be considered a State:

Provided, That not more than 10 percent of each amount may be
used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities
designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized:
Provided further, That not more than 2 percent of each amount
may be used for training and technical assistance: Provided
further, That the previous two provisos shall not apply to
demonstration projects, as authorized by sections 261 and 262
of the Act.

Public Safety Officers Benefits

To remain available until expended, for payments authorized
by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are
necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 100-
690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and $4,884,000, to remain
available until expended for payments as authorized by
section 1201(b) of said Act; and $4,064,000 for educational
assistance, as authorized by section 1212 of the 1968 Act.

General Provisions--Department of Justice

Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $60,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 104. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 105. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 106. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2007, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 533) without limitation on
the number of employees or the positions covered.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to establish a
procurement quota following the approval of a new drug
application or an abbreviated new drug application for a
controlled substance.
Sec. 108. The limitation established in the preceding
section shall not apply to any new drug application or
abbreviated new drug application for which the Drug
Enforcement Administration has reviewed and provided public
comments on labeling, promotion, risk management plans, and
any other documents.
Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
Public Law 102-395 section 102(b) shall extend to the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the conduct
of undercover investigative operations and shall apply
without fiscal year limitation with respect to any undercover
investigative operation initiated by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that is necessary for the
detection and prosecution of crimes against the United
States.
Sec. 110. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department
of Justice'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall
be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 112. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette
recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used
primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic
equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2006''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $34,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $34,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The committee is dedicated to addressing the methamphetamine problem;
and now with the additional funds freed by the amendment, we can
dedicate more funds to combat the meth problem. So I am offering this
amendment which adds $34 million to the COPS program to combat meth
production and trafficking and enhance policing initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H4496]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $126,152,000)''.
Page 57, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $126,152,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) 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.
Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that offers to bolster the
COPS program. The hiring count is zeroed out in this bill, and it takes
the funds of the National Science Foundation, reduces the NSF not back
to the level it was before its deep cuts, but puts it back to where it
was in 2004 before those big cuts began.
First, let me say that a consensus is emerging in this House. We have
had amendment after amendment that has been offered to take the COPS
program back from the scrap heap, back from a point at zero, and try to
restore the hiring component.
We saw it done from Census, a proposal to do it from the FBI, and a
proposal now to do it from the NSF. Let me be very clear, I think the
NSF should be higher than my amendment and higher than the level
provided by this House, and I believe the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would both
like to have more than they have allocated.
The issue is this: we have reached consensus in Congress that the
COPS program should not be zeroed out. We reached that consensus
because in the reauthorization for the Justice Department we included a
billion dollars to reauthorize the COPS program. We reached consensus
yesterday on the floor when overwhelmingly an amendment was adopted to
increase the COPS program. We just adopted an amendment to restore
funds to the COPS program. The COPS program should not be zeroed out
because it has been arguably the most successful Federal law
enforcement program ever created, and it is also the most democratic.
I have a map showing cities all around the country and the number of
officers that have been funded since 1995 and the level that crime has
gone down, whether it be Jackson, Mississippi, 347 officers funded, a
crime rate drop of 12 percent; San Antonio, Texas, 100 officers funded,
a drop of 9 percent; Boston, Massachusetts, 139 officers funded, a 28
percent crime rate reduction.
Yet in this bill, we zero out the hiring component. It is mysterious
why the COPS program has become such a target, but I can tell Members
it is not because the program does not work. A broad coalition,
bipartisan as we saw yesterday and in the sponsorship of my effort to
reauthorize the bill, shows that just about every law enforcement group
and just about every Member of this House believes in the COPS program.
This is another demonstration of the same point. Look at how evenly
distributed the number of new officers is: Texas, 6,074 police officers
on the street. When John Ashcroft spoke about this during his
confirmation hearings for Attorney General, he said, ``Let me just say,
I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS
program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put
additional police, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and
people would be safer and more secure. We believe the COPS program
demonstrated that conclusively.'' That is John Ashcroft.
When Tom Ridge was sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he
said homeland security starts in our home towns.
Yet what we have done, the last 4 years, since September 11, we have
had a steady decline in the COPS program to where it is zero. The
hiring component is at zero. We are actually taking cops off the street
rather than putting them on.
I have complete confidence that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) understand the
value of the COPS program. In the district of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), over $1.1 million has been awarded to add school
resource officers. In the district of the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan), over $26 million in the State of West Virginia.
So what does this amendment do? First of all, before my opponents
stand up, let me do the argument for them. The NSF is a valuable
agency. We are not saying it is not valuable. We are saying that
dramatic increase they are going to get this year be limited to
bringing them back to where they were in the 2004 budget before we
slashed it down. Not that it should be cut, not that it should be
reduced. It should be flatted out, increased rather, but only to the
point where it was in 2004 before we had the reduction last year. I
think it is fair and reasonable.
We also have to be careful about something else. We are in the
unpleasant circumstance of having to take from Peter to pay Paul. But I
would argue that Members should listen to the voice of this House. We
overwhelmingly reauthorized the COPS program in the Justice Department
reauthorization bill. The will of this House is to have a COPS hiring
component. Yesterday's amendments showed it.
So before we get into this argument about what is better, science or
police, I say they are both very, very important. What is more
important, Census or police; they are both very, very important. What
is more important, the FBI or the police on the beat; they are both
very, very important. This amendment seeks to balance two ideals.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. It
would inflict a major blow to the Nation's basic scientific research.
The Nation has reached a crisis point in terms of science and
technology. Any advantage that we have enjoyed is rapidly eroding.
The research budget should be considered part of the national
security budget. It is the most strategic investment we make in
maintaining America's leadership in the world. We worked hard within
our limited allocation to provide an increased funding level in the
bill for NSF's basic scientific research, $157 million above last
year's level. Every outside group said this is good. It is above what
the Bush administration had, and to take it out now would send a
message to the scientific community and the university community that
would demoralize them. It would make us a second- and third-rate
Nation. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science and one who knows so
much about this issue.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. I am a little bit surprised that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner), who is a former member of the Committee on Science, and
let me add a valuable member of the Committee on Science, I am a little
surprised he would be offering this amendment.
Let me say what I have said many times in response to earlier
amendments. We cannot be decimating a valuable program so another can
do a little bit better, and that is what this amendment would do.
The National Science Foundation is not exactly flush with cash these
days. The appropriators deserve to be congratulated for the funding
they have been able to find; but let me remind Members, it is not as
much as NSF received in fiscal year 2004. The approval rate for grant
applications is down 20 percent. The approval rate in some subfields,
some specialties, is in the single digits. Meanwhile, NSF is being
asked to take on more responsibilities, such as footing the bill for
the ice-breaking activities in the Antarctic. This is not the time to
be cutting NSF. NSF does not have cash to spare.
Even the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) recognizes this because
he proudly joined us in signing a letter requesting far more money for
NSF

[[Page H4497]]

than this bill provides. That letter talks about how vital NSF programs
are to our Nation's economic future.
If one takes the long view, it is kind of ironic to take money away
from NSF to find funding for local law enforcement. If our economy
falters, then crime will surely go up. And if we do not invest in basic
research, then over time our economy surely will falter. We should not
be doing this. This is not the right way to approach it.
I urge opposition to this amendment which will take money away from a
vital cash-strapped agency which is dealing with our future. No one
will fund basic research if the Federal Government does not. That is
not true of local law enforcement. So I urge opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) says before we get into this
argument between COPS and NSF and NOAA and all of the other good
programs in this bill, we are into the argument of balancing. He says
we are trying to balance two ideals.
I want to assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) that the
chairman, the ranking member, and all of the subcommittees, in addition
to the full Committee on Appropriations, have gone through an extensive
exercise of balancing these ideals, more than two ideals. There are
many competing domestic programs in this bill. They are all worthy
purposes and projects, and they all serve our country in different
ways; and given our allocation, we spent a lot of time balancing these
ideals.
I suggest that this amendment puts these ideals in imbalance,
particularly with regard to NSF. The whole stated purpose of moving the
science programs from VA-HUD and independent agencies last year as we
went through what I considered to be an unnecessary exercise of
eliminating that committee, the stated purpose was to reemphasize
science.
In a small way this committee has been able to do that in the sense
that the chairman restored to the National Science Foundation moneys
that we were not able to give it last year. In other words, in 2005 we
cut NSF. That was a terrible thing to do, and it was for reasons I will
speak to in just a moment. However, we have restored that money in this
bill. We have done the best for the COPS program, for the law
enforcement programs that we could. Although State and local law
enforcement, as we have seen by the Obey amendments and the debate with
regard to them, are certainly underfunded, so is the National Science
Foundation which is such a critical area for the Nation's future
economy.
I think everybody agrees that science research is the cutting edge,
is the precursor, if you will, for a modern economy. If we are going to
stay ahead of the economic conditions, of the economic realities, of
the economic phenomenon that we all find ourselves in with economic
globalization, we need to be at the forefront of research. We need to
be at the forefront of development. That requires a Federal role in
facilitating, in sponsoring, in sending the signal that the country
needs to invest in research in collaboration with our great university
institutions and our great corporations and small businesses and the
nonprofit sector that are so active with the National Science
Foundation funding.
I would point out these are competitive grants. They are particularly
important as they facilitate the research that gives us that economic
edge in the world.
I strongly support maintaining our funding for the National Science
Foundation. It would be disastrous and it would be extremely
shortsighted for all of the reasons I stated to do otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment and would strongly
encourage all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to oppose this
amendment, not because we oppose COPS; we support the COPS program, and
we will do everything we can for that program. At the same time, the
other ideal that the sponsor of the amendment talked about, the NSF,
cannot experience this kind of a cut and do the job that it needs to
do.

{time} 1100

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time not just this session, but
in the two previous sessions of this Congress fighting for additional
funding for law enforcement assistance grants. I take a back seat to no
one in my interest in doing that. But I absolutely agree with virtually
every word said by the subcommittee chairman the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and by the ranking member the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I have spent over 30 years on the Labor-
Health-Education subcommittee. One of our main concerns on that
subcommittee is health research principally centered in the National
Institutes of Health. Anyone from NIH will tell you that much of the
progress that they have been able to make in the past 20 years has been
rooted in the most basic of all scientific research, and a good deal of
that research has been funded in the past by the National Science
Foundation. If we cut back the National Science Foundation, we are
eating our own seed corn, we are eroding the ability of this economy to
grow, we are weakening the ability of this society to increase human
knowledge, and we are weakening our efforts to improve health as well.
If you would take a look at our research budget today, at our basic
research budget, we are spending a smaller percentage of our national
income on basic research today than we have been spending at any time
since those numbers have been kept. We do not want to weaken that even
more.
I would also point out that in the area of health, if you take a look
at the issue of three-dimensional imaging, that has been greatly
enhanced by basic research done under contract with the National
Science Foundation. Research into materials, into changing materials
that you can use for joints, for heart valves, much of that has
originated in research financed by the National Science Foundation. Eye
surgery has been refined to a great extent by what we have learned
under the auspices of the National Science Foundation.
I applaud the gentleman from New York in wanting to increase funding
for the COPS program. I think it is outrageous that we have seen these
long-term reductions. But if we do cut back on the National Science
Foundation, we not only threaten the health of America's citizens, we
threaten the health of America's economic system as well. I think this
is one of those examples where this agency does not have a lot of
political support, but it is absolutely imperative that we step in and
see to it that we make the advances that are possible with decent
levels of funding.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Just for the purpose of clarification, under my amendment
we are not reducing the budget of the NSF. It is going up. It is going
up. I just want to make that clear. What we are doing is we are saying
it should rise back to the level it was cut back to.
Mr. OBEY. I understand. But the gentleman, among other things, is
cutting into their education programs. This country is on the edge of
being scientifically illiterate. We cannot afford to cut back science
education in one classroom, in one university, in one corporation. We
have got to have it all, and we need to have much more than we have
right now.
Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert) made this characterization as well. The COPS
program hiring component is zero. Not a little, not a medium amount,
not cut back. Zero.
Mr. OBEY. If I can take back my time, I understand that. That is why
I had an amendment yesterday to add $400 million to local law
enforcement. The majority rejected that. I had another amendment adding
$200 million to local law enforcement.
My position in favor of the COPS program is clear. My brother-in-law
is a former district attorney who was shot. I have no less concern
about law enforcement than the gentleman from New York. But the
National Science Foundation and all of its ancillary programs,
especially its education programs, are crucial to the future health

[[Page H4498]]

of this country. It would be mindless to pass this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct.
The country is on the brink of scientific illiteracy. I join the
gentleman from Wisconsin, our ranking member, and our chairman in
strongly opposing this amendment.
I want to reiterate something Chairman Wolf said which is vitally
important. The National Science Foundation is of strategic importance
to the future prosperity of the United States. We have three
appropriations bills that deal with the defense of this country; one
obviously the defense bill, homeland security, and then this bill which
invests in the future prosperity of the country by investing in
fundamental research and development through the National Science
Foundation. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has
shown with future projections that the purchasing power of research and
development investments are expected to decline over the next 5 years.
The chairman has put together a superb bill that increases funding
for the National Science Foundation, not the level we need to be
because of our suballocation, but we are moving in the right direction.
If we do not do so, other nations will pass us by. China is now
graduating 300,000 engineers per year versus 71,000 in the United
States. China's high tech output has shot up eightfold over the 1990s,
while ours has only doubled. We need to reject this amendment and
continue the growth in investment in research and development through
the National Science Foundation.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has been a leader on this issue.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have to make a correction.
The gentleman from New York keeps saying that he is not cutting NSF.
Actually, the National Science Foundation appropriation under this bill
is still less than fiscal year 2004 due to the large cut last year.
Furthermore, the Research and Related Activities account, which we have
been discussing with this amendment, will be cut $60 million below
fiscal year 2004 levels by this amendment.
We have not only started to eat our seed corn, I read an article last
week that said the seed corn is almost gone. Because other countries
are making this a high priority, they are doing much better than we are
in research.
Let me illustrate the importance of research activities. When I was a
graduate student fifty years ago, a friend of mine, Charlie Townes, was
working on development of a laser. Today I hold in my hand a laser
which I purchased downstairs in the stationery shop for $15. That is
how far we have come in 50 years. The laser industry, which rose from a
simple grant to Dr. Townes from the National Science Foundation of a
few million dollars, is today a multi-multibillion-dollar industry in
this country. That is the kind of rate of return we get on our
investment in research and our funding of the National Science
Foundation. Reject this amendment. It goes in totally the wrong
direction.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner)
will be postponed.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II of the
bill through page 52, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of title II is as follows:

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

Trade and Infrastructure Development

RELATED AGENCIES

Office of the United States Trade Representative

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $44,779,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That not less than
$2,000,000 provided under this heading shall be for expenses
authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2451 and 1677b(c).

International Trade Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$62,752,000, to remain available until expended.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Operations and administration

For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans
and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad
for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of
alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction
of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use
abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise
in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official
representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $45,000 per
vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and
rental of tie lines, $406,925,000, of which $13,000,000 is to
be derived from fees to be retained and used by the
International Trade Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302: Provided, That $47,434,000 shall be for Manufacturing
and Services; $39,815,000 shall be for Market Access and
Compliance; $62,134,000 shall be for the Import
Administration of which not less than $3,000,000 is for the
Office of China Compliance; $231,722,000 shall be for the
United States and Foreign Commercial Service; and $25,820,000
shall be for Executive Direction and Administration: Provided
further, That the provisions of the first sentence of section
105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and
2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these activities without
regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for
the purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions
of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961
shall include payment for assessments for services provided
as part of these activities.

Bureau of Industry and Security

Operations and administration

For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles
for official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use
with special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase
without regard to any price limitation otherwise established
by law, $77,000,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $14,767,000 shall be for inspections and other
activities related to national security: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further,
That payments and contributions collected and accepted for
materials or services provided as part of such activities may
be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities,
and for providing information to the public with respect to
the export administration and national security activities of
the Department of Commerce and other export control programs
of the United States and other governments.

[[Page H4499]]

Economic Development Administration

Economic development assistance programs

For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and
for trade adjustment assistance, $200,985,000, to remain
available until expended.

Salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$26,584,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.

Minority Business Development Agency

Minority business development

For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$30,024,000.

Economic and Information Infrastructure

Economic and Statistical Analysis

Salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $80,304,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007.

Bureau of the Census

Salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $208,029,000.

Periodic censuses and programs

For necessary expenses related to the 2010 decennial
census, $463,596,000, to remain available until September 30,
2007: Provided, That of the total amount available related to
the 2010 decennial census, $213,849,000 is for the Re-
engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only Census,
$169,948,000 is for the American Community Survey, and
$79,799,000 is for the Master Address File/Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER)
system.
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
$160,612,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
of which $72,928,000 is for economic statistics programs and
$87,684,000 is for demographic statistics programs: Provided,
That regarding construction of a facility at the Suitland
Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding the expenditure
of funds and project planning, design and cost decisions
shall be provided by the Bureau, in cooperation with the
General Services Administration, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this or any other Act under the heading ``Bureau
of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs'' shall be used
to fund the construction and tenant build-out costs of a
facility at the Suitland Federal Center: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act for
any fiscal year may be used for the collection of Census data
on race identification that does not include ``some other
race'' as a category.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $17,716,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 1535(d), the Secretary of Commerce shall charge
Federal agencies for costs incurred in spectrum management,
analysis, and operations, and related services and such fees
shall be retained and used as offsetting collections for
costs of such spectrum services, to remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to retain and use as offsetting collections all
funds transferred, or previously transferred, from other
Government agencies for all costs incurred in
telecommunications research, engineering, and related
activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of
NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions under this
paragraph, and such funds received from other Government
agencies shall remain available until expended.

Public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction

For the administration of the program as authorized by
section 392 of the Communications Act of 1934, $2,000,000, to
remain available until expended as authorized by section 391
of the Act.

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of
suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, $1,703,300,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the sum herein
appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376 are received during
fiscal year 2006, so as to result in a fiscal year 2006
appropriation from the general fund estimated at $0: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2006, should the total
amount of offsetting fee collections be less than
$1,703,300,000, this amount shall be reduced accordingly:
Provided further, That not less than 657 full-time
equivalents, 690 positions and $85,017,000 shall be for the
examination of trademark applications; and not less than
6,050 full-time equivalents, 6,304 positions and $926,356,000
shall be for the examination and searching of patent
applications: Provided further, That not more than 265 full-
time equivalents, 272 positions and $37,490,000 shall be for
the Office of the General Counsel: Provided further, That not
more than 82 full-time equivalents, 83 positions and
$25,393,000 shall be for the Office of the Administrator for
External Affairs: Provided further, That from amounts
provided herein, not to exceed $1,000 shall be made available
in fiscal year 2006 for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1353
of title 31, United States Code, no employee of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office may accept payment or
reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel,
subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling
an employee to attend and participate in a convention,
conference, or meeting when the entity offering payment or
reimbursement is a person or corporation subject to
regulation by the Office, or represents a person or
corporation subject to regulation by the Office, unless the
person or corporation is an organization exempt from taxation
pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2006, from the
amounts made available for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the amounts
necessary to pay: (1) the difference between the percentage
of basic pay contributed by the PTO and employees under
section 8334(a) of title 5, United States Code, and the
normal cost percentage (as defined by section 8331(17) of
that title) of basic pay, of employees subject to subchapter
III of chapter 83 of that title; and (2) the present value of
the otherwise unfunded accruing costs, as determined by the
Office of Personnel Management, of post-retirement life
insurance and post-retirement health benefits coverage for
all PTO employees, shall be transferred to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund, the Employees Life Insurance
Fund, and the Employees Health Benefits Fund, as appropriate,
and shall be available for the authorized purposes of those
accounts.

Science and Technology

Technology Administration

Salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology Office of Technology Policy, $6,460,000.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Scientific and technical research and services

For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $397,744,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $760,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.

manufacturing extension partnerships

For necessary expenses of Manufacturing Extension
Partnerships of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $106,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Construction of research facilities

For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and
maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as
authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $45,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Operations, research, and facilities

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft and
vessels; grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities, $2,444,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That fees and donations
received by the National Ocean Service for the management of
national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for the
salaries and expenses associated with those activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That in
addition, $3,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the
fund entitled ``Coastal Zone Management'' and in addition
$77,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the fund
entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research
Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided further, That of
the $2,543,000,000 provided for in direct obligations under
this heading $2,444,000,000 is appropriated from the General
Fund, $80,000,000 is provided by transfer, and $19,000,000 is
derived from deobligations from prior years: Provided
further, That no general administrative charge shall be
applied against an assigned activity

[[Page H4500]]

included in this Act or the report accompanying this Act:
Provided further, That the total amount available for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration corporate
services administrative support costs shall not exceed
$189,010,000: Provided further, That payments of funds made
available under this heading to the Department of Commerce
Working Capital Fund including Department of Commerce General
Counsel legal services shall not exceed $40,700,000: Provided
further, That any deviation from the amounts designated for
specific activities in the report accompanying this Act, or
any use of deobligated balances of funds provided under this
heading in previous years, shall be subject to the procedures
set forth in section 605 of this Act.
In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits
Plan, and for payments for the medical care of retired
personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical
Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.

Procurement, acquisition and construction

For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital
assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $936,000,000
to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That
of the amounts provided for the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only
be made available on a dollar for dollar matching basis with
funds provided for the same purpose by the Department of
Defense: Provided further, That except to the extent
expressly prohibited by any other law, the Department of
Defense may delegate procurement functions related to the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System to officials of the Department of Commerce pursuant to
section 2311 of title 10, United States Code: Provided
further, That any deviation from the amounts designated for
specific activities in the report accompanying this Act, or
any use of deobligated balances of funds provided under this
heading in previous years, shall be subject to the procedures
set forth in section 605 of this Act: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act under
the heading ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Procurement, Acquisition and Construction''
shall be used to fund the General Services Administration's
standard construction and tenant build-out costs of a
facility at the Suitland Federal Center.

Pacific coastal salmon recovery

For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of
Pacific salmon populations, $50,000,000: Provided, That this
amount shall be available to fund grants to the States of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Alaska, and to the
Columbia River and Pacific Coastal Tribes for projects
necessary for restoration of salmon and steelhead populations
that are listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by
a State as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining
populations necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing
rights or native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of
Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat: Provided
further, That funds disbursed to States shall be subject to a
matching requirement of funds or documented in-kind
contributions of at least thirty-three percent of the Federal
funds: Provided further, That, in order to fulfill the
matching requirement in the previous proviso, non-Federal
contributions of funds pursuant to the previous proviso must
be used in direct support of this program.

Coastal zone management fund

Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed
$3,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' account to offset the costs of
implementing such Act.

Fisheries finance program account

For the costs of direct loans, $60,000, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: Provided
further, That these funds are only available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $5,000,000 for Individual Fishing Quota loans,
and not to exceed $18,900,000 for fishing capacity reduction
loans: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading may be used for direct loans for
any new fishing vessel that will increase the harvesting
capacity in any United States fishery.

Other

Departmental Management

Salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the departmental management of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $47,466,000:
Provided, That not to exceed 12 full-time equivalents and
$1,621,000 shall be expended for the legislative affairs
function of the Department.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $22,758,000.

General Provisions--Department of Commerce

Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that
such payments are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for
salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and
1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902).
Sec. 203. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance
of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset
(including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically
provided for in this or any other Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Sec. 204. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this title resulting from personnel actions
taken in response to funding reductions included in this
title or from actions taken for the care and protection of
loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within
the total budgetary resources available to such department or
agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry
out this section is provided in addition to authorities
included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of
funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 205. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department
of Commerce'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives
shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605
of this Act.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006''.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

Mr. MICA. 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. Mica:
Page 36, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $131,900,000)''.
Page 36, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $131,900,000)''.
Page 60, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $131,900,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer this amendment which transfers all of the funding for
economic service officer positions in the Department of State,
transfers their funds, $131 million for those positions, to the Foreign
Commercial Service operation, which is under the Department of
Commerce. I do so because this 5 or 10 minutes that we have here to
discuss on this amendment is probably the only discussion we will have
on this entire bill relating to our trade deficit and the inability of
the United States to compete in international markets.
I would venture to say very few Members of Congress have a clue as to
what the Foreign Commercial Service does or where it is positioned. The
Foreign Commercial Service, which has been around for some time and has
bounced around from the Department of Commerce to the Department of
State, is our number one means of assistance to particularly medium and
small businesses overseas to assist in promoting U.S. exports and
businesses in those localities.
Our trade deficit last month, I believe, was $57 billion. We will
exceed a trade deficit in the United States of over $600 billion this
year. We only have 76 countries in which we have

[[Page H4501]]

Foreign Commercial Service operations. We only have officers in 76
countries. In 96 countries, the Department of State has that
responsibility. I would not mind if the Department of State had that
responsibility, but from my personal experience of dealing in
international trade, our system of promoting, assisting, financing and
negotiating in international trade is dysfunctional at best.
We have these 98 countries, and I will include this list as part of
the Record, that have no Foreign Commercial Service operations. It is
handled by the State Department. If I thought the State Department
considered this a priority in promoting trade in U.S. business, or we
had the best personnel to assist in doing business, I would not be
here. Here is the response I got from the Department of State on the
number of positions they have:
There are currently 1,319 Foreign Service officers with economics
specialization. List of overseas economic positions and posts where the
State Department performs the commercial functions are enclosed. As you
can see, the number of economic positions overseas, only 497, is
considerably less than the number of Foreign Service officers with an
economic specialty, 1,319. The difference is accounted for by the fact
that many economic officers are entry-level officers who in their first
one or two tours in the Foreign Service fill rotational or consular
positions. Other economics officers are stationed in Washington; others
are participating in long-term training or performing other noneconomic
jobs overseas, and so forth.
That is not a priority. We have the emerging markets around the world
in which we have not a priority nor no Foreign Commercial Service
officer operating. This is a simple amendment. It transfers those,
sometimes they call them bean counters, and in some countries the
economic officers do do a very good job, but I am saying in most
countries we do not even have and in emerging markets we do not even
have a Foreign Commercial Service officer.
Finally, I have a chart that shows the level of funding for
international trade promotion and assistance positions and the deficit.
As we keep the level of personnel dealing with assisting business and
particularly medium and small business at the lowest possible level,
you can see that our trade deficit explodes.
Mr. Chairman, 19 of 20 consumers in the future are outside our
borders. I cannot fault the appropriators alone because this is also
authorization responsibility, but it is multijurisdictional. But no one
is taking it within their turf to do anything about this, so I propose
today that we take the economic officers who do not have this as a
priority in the Department of State and transfer them to the Department
of Commerce under the Foreign Commercial Service Office.

Embassies at Which State Department Performs Commercial Function

africa

1 Abidjan
2 Addis Ababa
3 Antananarivo
4 Asmara
5 Bamako
6 Bangui
7 Banjul
8 Bissau
9 Brazzaville
10 Bujumbura
11 Conakry
12 Cotonou
13 Dar Es Salaam
14 Djibouti
15 Freetown
16 Gaborone
17 Harare
18 Kampala
19 Khartoum
20 Kigali
21 Kinshasa
22 Libreville
23 Lilongwe
24 Lome
25 Luanda
26 Lusaka
27 Maputo
28 Maseru
29 Mbabane
30 N'djamena
31 Niamey
32 Monrovia
33 Nouakchott
34 Ouagadougou
35 Port Louis
36 Praia
37 Windhoek
38 Yaounde

east asia & pacific

39 Apia
40 Bandar Seri Begawan
41 Dili
42 Kolonia
43 Koror
44 Majuro
45 Phnom Penh
46 Port Moresby
47 Rangoon
48 Suva
49 Ulaambaatar
50 Vientianne

europe

51 Ashgabat
52 Baku
53 Bishkek
54 Chisinau
55 Dushanbe
56 Ljubljana
57 Luxembourg
58 Minsk
59 Nicosia
60 Reykjavik
61 Riga
62 Sasrajevo
63 Skopje
64 Tallinn
65 Tashkent
66 Tbilisi
67 Tirana
68 Valletta
69 Vilnius
70 Yerevan

near east

71 Algiers
72 Beirut
73 Damascus
74 Doha
75 Manama
76 Muscat
77 Sanaa
78 Tripoli
79 Tunis

south asia

80 Colombo
81 Dhaka
82 Islamabad
83 Kabul
84 Kathmandu

western hemisphere

85 Asuncion
86 Belize
87 Bridgetown
88 Georgetown
89 Kingston
90 La Paz
91 Managua
92 Montevideo
93 Nassau
94 Paramaribo
95 Port au Prince
96 Port of Spain
97 St. Georges
98 Tegucigalpa

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was led to believe the gentleman was going to withdraw the
amendment. In the interest of time, I would just say that I understand
what the gentleman is saying. He makes some very valid points. We can
look into that. But if the gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will
not take the body's time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, I
stayed out here yesterday and today to make this point, because this is
critical to the future economic development, the growth of jobs in this
country. With that spirit in mind, I appreciate the gentleman's offer
to look further at this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

{time} 1115

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. INSLEE. 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. Inslee:
Page 38, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a small, but I think meaningful, amendment that will stop
some of the cuts that have been going on for several years in our
Coastal Zone Management account that aids so many communities on the
coast and our watersheds across the country. Unfortunately, we have
continued to seek cuts

[[Page H4502]]

in the NOAA budget, which have also impacted the Coastal Zone
Management program over the last several years, this year a $500
million cut in the NOAA budget. Our amendment would restore simply $5
million to the Coastal Zone Management account to be used in numerous
places across the country.
This summer our constituents are going to be going to the beaches,
but unfortunately there is some bad news at those beaches. We have got
algae, red tide, closures of shellfish beds in New England. We have got
fish in 22 sites in coastal waterways found contaminated with toxics.
One third of the beaches in the Great Lakes have been closed due to
septic and sewage problems at one point or another in the last several
years. We have got problems in our beaches, and we do not want to allow
cuts to continue to occur to this Coastal Zone Management account.
I want to note this account is not just for the West and east coasts.
This includes watersheds across the country, for instance, in the Ohio
Cuyahoga County project to address some problems at Euclid Creek; in
Pennsylvania in Bucks County, an award to help handicap access of
Silver Lake Nature Center. This really is a nationwide program, and
there are nationwide problems that we want to address.
There has been a strong bipartisan support for this program. I note
the President, on our national oceans policy, has suggested we need
increased, not decreased, funding with our coastal beaches, which are
real jewels in the crown of our national assets.
This money would come out of the Bureau of Industry and Security.
That bureau in this year's proposed budget would get a 14 percent plus-
up. After our proposal, they would still have a 7 percent increase. So
under our proposal, we preserve our beaches. We simply restore this to
levels we had in 2002, and we still increase this agency that is
responsible for export controls in the Department of Commerce. This is
something to really get back to where we were in 2002 to protecting our
beaches. We commend this to our Members.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment cuts
the Bureau of Industry and Security by over 6 percent. What does that
mean, because it does not sound that it is that significant? A cut of
$5 million to the Bureau of Industry and Security would severely
diminish efforts to deter weapons of mass destruction proliferation,
would prevent sensitive dual-use items from falling into the hands of
terrorists, and enforces the anti-boycott laws of the United States.
Some think that the Bureau of Industry and Security is actually too
weak, and I may be in that category. American industry is being
hampered in the international marketplace by the long processing time
of export license applications. This amendment would roll back the
progress that we have made in reducing the average processing time from
44 days to 32 days since 2003. With additional money we could probably
get that down.
The trade deficit, the trade imbalance, this would really create a
greater problem to deal with that. Quite frankly, I do not think this
administration has done enough to deal with the trade deficit, the
trade imbalance. So to take $5 million from the Bureau of Industry and
Security would severely diminish our ability both on looking at weapons
of mass destruction and technology and also hamper American business at
the very time when we are urging them to sell American products abroad.
I understand the gentleman makes some good points with regard to the
Coastal Zone Management, and maybe we can look at that as we go into
conference. But I would not want to take that from here. I urge a
``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
There is no question that Coastal Zone Management grants are
important, and the committee addressed it as best they could. This is
not a good place to take money from. The mission of the bureau is to
advance U.S. national security, U.S. foreign policy and economic
interests. It regulates the export of sensitive goods and technologies,
enforces export control, anti-boycott and public safety laws. This may
not be a high visibility public organization, but they do extremely
important work, and they have received accolades from the commission on
intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of
mass destruction report.
The point is that this agency does a lot of very good work, and I
agree with the chairman. As we move forward, if there are any
opportunities to put money into Coastal Zone Management grants or some
of these other worthy accounts, we should take every opportunity to do
that. However, again, this is a balancing act, and I think that the
bill reflects the right balance with regard to this account.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a balancing act, but these accounts are in balance. This
Bureau of Industry and Security is going up under the proposed bill by
$10 million. It is going up $10 million, and under our amendment it
would still go up $5 million. It would still go up 7 percent. This
agency is getting bigger. It is having more capability under our
amendment than it did last year, and it is going to have an ability to
do its mission. But we will also at the same time with my amendment try
to keep some of the toxics and sewage off the beaches that our
constituents are going to see this summer in numerous places around
this country.
And the challenges that we face in the oceans have not been going
down. They are becoming greater. It does not make sense for this
Congress year after year to cut the attention that we give to the
beaches across this country and the lake shores from the Great Lakes to
the Mississippi to the Gulf Coast and the Pacific. This is not our
prioritization. Without this amendment there is an imbalance. Let us
have both these accounts go up. Under my amendment, both of these
accounts go up this year, and that is the prioritization.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think all that is needed to be said has
been said. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. INSLEE. 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 Washington (Mr. Inslee)
will be postponed.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this appropriations bill increases
funding for the United States Marshals Service to enhance judicial
protection. We have all heard of the deadly shootings that have claimed
the lives of a judge, a judge's family members, a court reporter, a
sheriff's deputy, and others inside and outside courthouses and even at
private residences. This increase in funding is a good step, but I hope
this Congress will continue to address this important issue so that we
can ensure the safety in our courtrooms and the safety of our
distinguished jurists.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the physical attacks we have witnessed,
the judiciary has also been the subject of many verbal assaults as
well. The independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our
separation of powers, has recently come under attack and has even
become a matter of contention for some, even those at the highest
levels of leadership in Congress who have made no effort to disguise a
growing hostility towards the courts.
In bill after bill, many of our colleagues have been calling to strip
the courts of jurisdiction over issues where they believe the courts
have erred, or

[[Page H4503]]

might err, and arguing we have no need of them. The proposed sanction
for judges who tread on this prohibited ground, and a word spoken in
the Halls of Congress with less and less restraint: impeachment.
Perhaps the single greatest example of the magnitude of the challenge
to the independence of the courts, though, came with the Congress's
extraordinary intervention in the case of Terry Schiavo. This
heartrending private tragedy became the focus of efforts to overturn
the Florida courts' interpretation of Florida law. When the Federal
courts rejected this private bill and its effort to provide
jurisdiction to courts that could not properly exercise it, the
reaction among many in Congress was one of wrath. The same
congressional leaders who had spent the last several months trying to
strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction were now trying to extend it
where it did not belong. Some have decided that the independence of the
judiciary is an inconvenient impediment to a results-at-all-costs
philosophy.
As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the
relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have
formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan
congressional caucus dedicated to improving comity between the branches
of government. Our Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch
currently consists of some 35 Members from both sides of the aisle, and
I encourage my colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to
restore the historical comity between our two branches.
For the last 2 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist has cited the
deterioration in relations between the Congress and the Federal
judiciary, using his year-end reports to urge a restoration of comity
between the branches. He has quoted Chief Justice Hughes' admonition to
the Congress of his day that ``in the great enterprise of making
American democracy workable for all partners, one member of our body
politic cannot say to another 'I have no need of thee.'''
So today I offer on the House floor a simple sense of Congress
amendment to demonstrate to our colleagues in the judicial branch and
to the American people that we are committed to working together with
the other branches and to upholding the fundamental separation of
powers that the Founders envisioned, even if we do not always agree
with each other.
It reads: ``It is the sense of Congress that all necessary steps
should be taken to provide adequate security for the judiciary and to
protect and uphold the independence of the judicial branch.''
Mr. Chairman, efforts by Congress to force the courts to look at our
transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, will damage the courts
and undermine our own integrity. In the end, we cannot expect to
belittle the courts without belittling ourselves. I urge support for
this amendment.
I know the chairman has a point of order on this. I would like to, on
a separate topic, just thank the chairman; and I would also like to
thank not only the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) but the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), ranking member, for their
work on the NASA budget in particular as it impacted JPL. I really
appreciate the chairman's diligence. He was very kind to meet and
discuss this with me several times, to reach out to me after our
discussions. I want to thank the chairman again for all his diligence
on that issue.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is no amendment. We were going to
reserve a point of order on it. But I just want the Record to show, and
I appreciate the gentleman's comments, that the bill provides $800
million for the Marshals Service, which is $41 million above the
current year and $10 million above the request. This is in addition to
the $12 million provided in the war supplemental for judicial security.
So with that I just thank the gentleman for his comments.

{time} 1130

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
thank the chairman, and I do appreciate the increases in courthouse
security. I would ask my colleagues to join in supporting not only the
physical security measures, but also the independence of the
institution of the judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--SCIENCE

Office of Science and Technology Policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601-6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,564,000.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Science, Aeronautics And Exploration

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and exploration
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and restoration, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space
flight, spacecraft control and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter,
maintenance and operation of mission and administrative
aircraft, $9,725,750,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007, of which amounts as determined by the Administrator
for salaries and benefits; training, travel and awards;
facility and related costs; information technology services;
science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and
other administrative services may be transferred to
``Exploration Capabilities'' in accordance with section
312(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as
amended by Public Law 106-377: Provided, That any funds
provided under this heading used to implement E-Government
Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures set forth in
section 605 of this Act.

Exploration Capabilities

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of exploration capabilities research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support and services; maintenance; construction
of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; environmental
compliance and restoration; space flight, spacecraft control
and communications activities including operations,
production, and services; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $35,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and
purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $6,712,900,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2007, of which amounts
as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits;
training, travel and awards; facility and related costs;
information technology services; science, engineering,
fabricating and testing services; and other administrative
services may be transferred to ``Science, Aeronautics and
Exploration'' in accordance with section 312(b) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended by
Public Law 106-377: Provided, That any funds provided under
this heading used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall
be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $32,400,000.

Administrative Provisions

Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration'', or
``Exploration Capabilities'' by this appropriations Act, when
any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of
obligations for construction of facilities or environmental
compliance and restoration activities as authorized by law,
such amount available for such activity shall remain
available until expended. This provision does not apply to
the amounts appropriated for institutional minor
revitalization and construction of facilities, and
institutional facility planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for

[[Page H4504]]

``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration'', or ``Exploration
Capabilities'' by this appropriations Act, the amounts
appropriated for construction of facilities shall remain
available until September 30, 2008.
From amounts made available in this Act for these
activities, subject to the operating plan procedures of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the
Administrator may transfer amounts between the ``Science,
Aeronautics, and Exploration'' account and the ``Exploration
Capabilities'' account during fiscal year 2006.
Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall
remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the
prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
Funding made available under the headings ``Exploration
Capabilities'' and ``Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration''
in this Act shall be governed by the terms and conditions
specified in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report for this Act.

National Science Foundation

Research and related activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft;
$4,377,520,000 to remain available until September 30, 2007,
of which not to exceed $425,000,000 shall remain available
until expended for Polar research and operations support, and
for reimbursement to other Federal agencies for operational
and science support and logistical and other related
activities for the United States Antarctic program: Provided,
That from amounts specified for Polar research and operations
support, the National Science Foundation may reimburse the
Coast Guard for such sums as determined by the Director of
the National Science Foundation to be necessary to support
the Foundation's mission requirements: Provided further, That
any reimbursement pursuant to the previous proviso shall be
treated as a reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section:
Provided further, That receipts for scientific support
services and materials furnished by the National Research
Centers and other National Science Foundation supported
research facilities may be credited to this appropriation:
Provided further, That funds under this heading may be
available for innovation inducement prizes.

Major research equipment and facilities construction

For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction,
commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment,
facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended,
including authorized travel, $193,350,000, to remain
available until expended.

Education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and rental of conference rooms
in the District of Columbia, $807,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007.

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $250,000,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and Expenses''
in fiscal year 2006 for maintenance and operation of
facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the
next fiscal year.

Office of the National Science Board

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and
the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109
of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out
section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.),
$4,000,000: Provided, That not more than $9,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amemded, $11,500,000, to remain available until September 30,
2007.
This title may be cited as the ``Science Appropriations
Act, 2006''.

Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 60, line 4, be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Administration of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by
section 801 of the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international
organizations in which the United States participates
pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and
consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms
control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as
authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of
general administration, $3,747,118,000: Provided, That not to
exceed 71 permanent positions and $9,804,000 shall be for the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That, of the
amount made available under this heading, not to exceed
$4,000,000 may be transferred to, and merged with, funds in
the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service''
appropriations account, to be available only for emergency
evacuations and terrorism rewards: Provided further, That, of
the amount made available under this heading, $340,000,000
shall be available only for public diplomacy international
information programs: Provided further, That of the amount
made available under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be
available only for the operations of the Office on Right-
Sizing the United States Government Overseas Presence:
Provided further, That funds available under this heading may
be available for a United States Government interagency task
force to examine, coordinate and oversee United States
participation in the United Nations headquarters renovation
project: Provided further, That no funds may be obligated or
expended for processing licenses for the export of satellites
of United States origin (including commercial satellites and
satellite components) to the People's Republic of China
unless, at least 15 days in advance, the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
are notified of such proposed action.
In addition, not to exceed $1,469,000 shall be derived from
fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use
of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in
addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000,
to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to
be used for the purposes set out in that section; in
addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and
publication programs and from fees from educational advising
and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in
addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from
reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House
facilities.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
$689,523,000, to remain available until expended.

Capital Investment Fund

For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
$128,263,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$29,983,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to
post inspections.

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized, $410,400,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended, may be credited to this
appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in
connection with English teaching, educational advising and
counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as
authorized.

Representation Allowances

For representation allowances as authorized, $8,281,000.

Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials

For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services, as authorized, $9,390,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007.

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926 (22

[[Page H4505]]

U.S.C. 292-303), preserving, maintaining, repairing, and
planning for buildings that are owned or directly leased by
the Department of State, renovating, in addition to funds
otherwise available, the Harry S Truman Building, and
carrying out the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as
authorized, $603,510,000, to remain available until expended
as authorized, of which not to exceed $25,000 may be used for
domestic and overseas representation as authorized: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall
be available for acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or
generators for other departments and agencies.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
acquisition, and construction as authorized, $910,200,000, to
remain available until expended.

Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.

Repatriation Loans Program Account

For the cost of direct loans, $712,000, as authorized:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $607,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account
under Administration of Foreign Affairs.

Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan

For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act (Public Law 96-8), $19,751,000.

Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $131,700,000.

International Organizations

Contributions to International Organizations

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, $1,166,212,000: Provided, That
the Secretary of State shall, at the time of the submission
of the President's budget to Congress under section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, transmit to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives the most recent biennial budget prepared by
the United Nations for the operations of the United Nations:
Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance
(or in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable) of
any United Nations action to increase funding for any United
Nations program without identifying an offsetting decrease
elsewhere in the United Nations budget and cause the United
Nations budget for the biennium 2006-2007 to exceed the
revised United Nations budget level for the biennium 2004-
2005 of $3,695,480,000: Provided further, That any payment of
arrearages under this title shall be directed toward special
activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States
and the respective international organization: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution
to an international organization for the United States share
of interest costs made known to the United States Government
by such organization for loans incurred on or after October
1, 1984, through external borrowings.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

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

Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
Page 65, line 20, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $218,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this appropriations
bill today that reduces United States contributions to the United
Nations regular budget by 50 percent.
Mr. Chairman, the sad facts are these: Although plagued by scandal,
the U.N. refuses to take reform seriously. Despite continued reports of
U.N. employees taking advantage of the very people they are supposed to
protect, allowing billions of dollars to be misspent in the oil-for-
food relief program, twisted allegations of U.N. peacekeepers offering
minors food in return for sex in the Congo, providing seats for China,
Sudan and then Cuba at the Human Rights Commission, Kofi Annan refuses
to consider necessary reforms to clean up the U.N. Indeed, Mr.
Chairman, in as recently as today's headlines, we read of alleged
connections and knowledge by the Secretary General into the dealings of
the Swiss firm Cotecna in this horrible oil-for-food scandal.
The United Nations' regular budget is nearly $2 billion per year. Of
that amount, the U.S. regularly contributes 22 percent. The underlying
bill earmarks $440 million for the next year's U.N. budget, and even
after, even after a $218 million reduction in dues, the United States
will be the second largest contributor to the U.N. budget and the
largest contributor to all other U.N. programs, including peacekeeping
missions, voluntary programs and membership organizations.
Mr. Chairman, it is easier to amend the Constitution of the United
States than the Charter of the United Nations, yet when we come to this
floor at the outset of every Congress, we raise our right hand and
express our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
It is time to restore the proper priorities. There is no clearer
message, there is no clearer way to impact public policy, than to
reduce the budget, to reduce the expenditures of the American taxpayer
to this international budget.
I ask approval of this amendment.
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 will control the 5 minutes
in opposition.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes $200 million from the
International Organization Account under State Department. Quite
frankly, this would be devastating for the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde), who is bringing his bill up tomorrow.
This bill already, the bill we are now dealing with today, cuts $130
million from the President's request for international organizations.
These cuts in the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona
would have a direct impact on critical organizations such as NATO,
whose members are now providing training and support in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Last night I heard the President talk about the success
that is taking place in Afghanistan, and this amendment literally would
try to take that success away. Further cutting this funding jeopardizes
the effort.
Lastly, this body should know that along with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano), as ranking member, we had in our bill last year a
task force chaired by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell
that just reported today. I read their entire report over the weekend
on dramatic reforms to the U.N.
At a press conference today at 10 o'clock, I made the comments that
because of the failure of the U.N. to deal with Darfur, and nobody has
been more critical in this institution of the U.N. than I have, I led
the first delegation to Darfur where genocide is taking place, we went
through all those, but we set up the Gingrich-Mitchell task force of
the bipartisan AEI, Heritage and all the groups like that, they have
now come up with recommendations that will embolden the administration
and this Congress to make sure that the reform is done.
Also, how can we even be dealing with this amendment today when the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations is bringing his
U.N. reform bill to the House floor this Thursday? The gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde), God bless him and his committee, worked hard
to ensure that reform takes place in the U.N. To take this amendment
before the Hyde bill comes up is not only putting the cart before the
horse, it just does not make any sense.
The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as the
committee and Members know, requires

[[Page H4506]]

that 39 reforms must take place, and the Secretary of State must
certify that these reforms have taken place. So with the Hyde bill and
the Gingrich-Mitchell task force today, there will be reforms, but to
just come in now before Mr. Hyde has an opportunity would be a mistake.
I know what the gentleman is trying to do, because I care desperately
about Darfur. I led the first delegation to Darfur. I have been
critical of the U.N., with the failure to address the issue of hunger.
We had hunger in 1984 in Ethiopia when I was there, hunger 2\1/2\ years
ago, and now hunger again; also there is a problem with the sexual
predators who were U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo. But all of those
issues, every one of those issues, are dealt with in the Gingrich-
Mitchell task force that came out today, and dealt with in the
resolution by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that will
come up either tomorrow or Friday.
So I understand what the gentleman's problems are, but this would not
be a good thing to do. So I would ask Members on both sides, as good as
the gentleman's intentions are, to just reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out to my friend, the
distinguished subcommittee chair, I appreciate his passion, and I
appreciate his pioneering work in terms of what has happened at Darfur.
But this amendment was brought to this House in the previous Congress,
and again we were told to wait. The fact is, as constitutional
officers, it is incumbent upon us to move to stop abuses.
I would point out that this amendment does not change our funding for
peacekeeping missions, voluntary programs and membership organizations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, recognize and appreciate the passion that comes
from our chairman, and to sustain that level over a couple of days is
an impressive thing to see. We have watched this United Nations for a
lot longer than that. This amendment was on this floor 2 years ago,
and, as I recall, there were 184 votes in support of this, even though
we were asked to not bring it.
The issue is in front of Americans. They understand this. They
understand the United Nations needs to have a strong, strong message
from Congress to reform.
This is simply something that recognizes a flaw. We recognize a flaw
in the fundamental structure of the United Nations. The flaw is that
the people in this country believe that they are paying for a
democratic organization that represents the voice of the people of the
world, but the votes that come in the U.N. General Assembly are the
votes that come from the mouthpieces of dictators, counteracting and
counterbalancing the mouthpieces of a free people.
We need to have fundamental reform in the United Nations, we need to
have a structure that represents the voice of the free people in the
world, we need to have a Free World Caucus formed within the United
Nations, and the United States has got to stop funding the kind of
organizations that oppose our interests. That is what we are doing
here, in disproportionate share. That is what the Hayworth amendment
seeks to correct, and that is why I am supporting of the Hayworth
amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is not eligible to strike
the last word. Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, that
was reserved for the subcommittee chairman, the subcommittee ranking
member and the full committee ranking member.

{time} 1145

Mr. SERRANO. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and with a prior
agreement, I do not know if it was manifested through the Chair, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has ceded that position to
me for the time being.
The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House of yesterday prevents that
request.
Mr. SERRANO. Then I will stand corrected and very quietly sit down.
Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). I think I share the frustrations
that a lot of Members feel about the United Nations and some of the
reforms, but this is a meat ax approach to it.
It is ironic that in the next 24 or 48 hours we are going to be
considering on this floor legislation to reform the United Nations, and
I think that legislation is the proper approach to this problem. It
requires that certain steps be taken and that our United Nations
representative make sure that those steps are being taken in the United
Nations. Cutting off our dues, which is a legal responsibility, an
agreement that we enter into with the United Nations, that each country
does, to pay its share of the dues would be a little bit like my
saying, well, I am for tax reform so, in the meantime, I am not going
to pay my taxes. I think we have an obligation to pay our dues to the
United Nations and pursue the reforms.
I would also add that there has been some significant improvements
already in the United Nations' operations. I would hope we would reject
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. No. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has the
right to close.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I thank my colleague from Arizona for his comments. I do not believe
that his analogy about withholding tax payments in protest to the
government is apt because, Mr. Chairman, our responsibility first and
foremost, yes, even as a Member of an international body, is to make
sure that American interests are protected and, by extension, the
interests of those in the world who have been abused, such as the Iraqi
people, such as those innocent, young people in the Congo who have been
sexually assaulted. And with a corrupt world body, we have incumbent in
this amendment an obligation to seriously reduce the funding and, by
extension, might I add, allow others within the international community
to pay their fair share.
I look forward to the bill from the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, but I would ask my colleagues to join with me
in acceptance of this amendment, because enough is enough.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to
yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); but before I do, if
I could just say one thing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
spent a lot of time on this issue, and when a gentleman has worked to
the degree that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has, he ought to
have a clear shot at the opportunity to pick it up.
Secondly, the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force report has not been
watered down. It is tough. And the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)
mentioned democracy. In the Gingrich-Mitchell report, there is a whole
chapter urging the United States to push for the abolition of the Human
Rights Commission, which Sudan was the chairman of and on, and Libya
was on, and instead set up a democracy caucus, and also have someone in
New York who would be working with the democracy.
Also, the gentleman from Arizona mentioned that we were told to wait.
We did wait. He voted for the bill last year that set up the Gingrich-
Mitchell Task Force, and that is what we have done. So nobody told the
gentleman to wait. We acted based on something, and I would have acted
whether we told the gentleman to act or not because I had concerns. I
saw the suffering in Darfur, I know all about that; I have been to the
Congo and saw it, but do

[[Page H4507]]

not cut the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) out. I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the
amendment. I think that as our country asks other nations throughout
the world to join us in the fight against terrorism, we should be
trying in every way possible to bring people closer to us, not to
separate ourselves.
Now, granted, there are many people here, and many people throughout
the diplomatic world, that have problems and concerns about the way the
U.N. is functioning right now; but it is still better to be a very
active member of the U.N. rather than in opposition to the U.N.
The U.N. is still the only body on Earth capable of dealing with so
many of these issues. And rather than run them out of town, rather than
continue to put ourselves in arrears, which we, under the leadership of
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), accomplished recently, to
take our country out of arrears at the U.N. in terms of our dues, this
would put us right back in; and I just think it is the wrong message.
Are there problems? Yes. Should we address them? Absolutely. Should
we demand reform? Absolutely. But we do not demand reform by
withdrawing, but rather by staying involved.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Virginia, the subcommittee chairman.
I welcome the remarks of my friend from New York because, Mr.
Chairman, it gives me an opportunity to clear up any misconception
about this amendment. This does not withdraw United States
participation from the United Nations, nor does it change our funding
for peacekeeping missions, voluntary programs, and membership
organizations.
What we are saying, and what duly elected, constitutional officers
here in the people's House will say with passage of this amendment, is
that in terms of the regular framework of budgeting for the United
Nations, a process that my colleagues admit is horribly flawed, we will
reduce that funding by one-half and invite others in the international
community to come forward and pay their fair share.
My friend from Virginia has been very gracious with the time, and I
thank him.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 1 minute
remaining under the order of the House yesterday, and 1 minute
remaining under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment. The fact that it
is offered and, hopefully, defeated on behalf of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others, will put pressure on. I think the U.N.
will have an obligation to adopt the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations
and, also, the administration will have an opportunity, but also an
obligation to do that, because the U.N. has failed. It failed in
Darfur, it failed in Rwanda, it failed in Srebrenic, and it failed in
Sarajevo. Hopefully, this amendment will fail, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will have an opportunity to have his bill and voted
on tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. 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 Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, $1,035,500,000, of which 15 percent shall remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That none of
the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or
expended for any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping
mission unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the
new or expanded mission in the United Nations Security
Council (or in an emergency as far in advance as is
practicable): (1) the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate
committees of the Congress are notified of the estimated cost
and length of the mission, the vital national interest that
will be served, and the planned exit strategy; (2) the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and other appropriate committees of the
Congress are notified that the United Nations has taken
appropriate measures to prevent United Nations employees,
contractor personnel, and peacekeeping forces serving in any
United Nations peacekeeping mission from trafficking in
persons, exploiting victims of trafficking, or committing
acts of illegal sexual exploitation, and to hold accountable
any such individuals who engage in any such acts while
participating in the peacekeeping mission; and (3) a
reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 605 of this Act is
submitted, and the procedures therein followed, setting forth
the source of funds that will be used to pay for the cost of
the new or expanded mission: Provided further, That funds
shall be available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a
certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate
committees of the Congress that American manufacturers and
suppliers are being given opportunities to provide equipment,
services, and material for United Nations peacekeeping
activities equal to those being given to foreign
manufacturers and suppliers: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available under this heading are available to
pay the United States share of the cost of court monitoring
that is part of any United Nations peacekeeping mission.

International Commissions

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet
obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or
specific Acts of Congress, as follows:

international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United
States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for
representation; as follows:

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
$27,000,000.

Construction

For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, $5,300,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.

American Sections, International Commissions

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $9,500,000,
of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for
representation expenses incurred by the International Joint
Commission.

International Fisheries Commissions

For necessary expenses for international fisheries
commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by
law, $22,000,000: Provided, That the United States' share of
such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.

Other

Payment to the Asia Foundation

For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the
Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $10,000,000, to remain
available until expended, as authorized.

Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program

For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 2006, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.

israeli arab scholarship program

For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2006, to remain
available until expended.

[[Page H4508]]

East-West Center

To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying
out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to
the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between
East and West in the State of Hawaii, $6,000,000: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to
pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the
payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5376.

National Endowment for Democracy

For grants made by the Department of State to the National
Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National
Endowment for Democracy Act, $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

RELATED AGENCY

Broadcasting Board of Governors

International Broadcasting Operations

For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, as authorized, to carry out international
communication activities, including the purchase,
installation, rent, and improvement of facilities for radio
and television transmission and reception to Cuba, and to
make and supervise grants for radio and television
broadcasting to the Middle East, $620,000,000: Provided, That
of the total amount in this heading, not to exceed $16,000
may be used for official receptions within the United States
as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be used for
representation abroad as authorized, and not to exceed
$39,000 may be used for official reception and representation
expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and revenue from
business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in receipts from
cooperating international organizations, and not to exceed
$1,000,000 in receipts from privatization efforts of the
Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau,
to remain available until expended for carrying out
authorized purposes.

Broadcasting Capital Improvements

For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio and television transmission and
reception, and purchase and installation of necessary
equipment for radio and television transmission and reception
as authorized, $10,893,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.

General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency

Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and for hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to provide equipment, technical support,
consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
Sec. 404. (a) The Senior Policy Operating Group on
Trafficking in Persons, established under section 406 of
division B of Public Law 108-7 to coordinate agency
activities regarding policies (including grants and grant
policies) involving the international trafficking in persons,
shall coordinate all such policies related to the activities
of traffickers and victims of severe forms of trafficking.
(b) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act
shall be expended to perform functions that duplicate
coordinating responsibilities of the Operating Group.
(c) The Operating Group shall continue to report only to
the authorities that appointed them pursuant to section 406
of division B of Public Law 108-7.
Sec. 405. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department
of State'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall
be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.
Sec. 406. (a) Subsection (f) of section 36 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(f))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(f) Ineligibility.--An officer'' and
inserting the following:
``(f) Ineligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
officer''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Exception in certain circumstances.--The Secretary
may pay a reward to an officer or employee of a foreign
government (or any entity thereof) who, while in the
performance of his or her official duties, furnishes
information described in such subsection, if the Secretary
determines that such payment satisfies the following
conditions:
``(A) Such payment is appropriate in light of the
exceptional or high-profile nature of the information
furnished pursuant to such subsection.
``(B) Such payment may aid in furnishing further
information described in such subsection.
``(C) Such payment is formally requested by such agency.''.
(b) Subsection (b) of such section (22 U.S.C. 2708(b)) is
amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting
``or to an officer or employee of a foreign government in
accordance with subsection (f)(2)'' after ``individual''.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes

Mr. REYES. 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. Reyes:
Page 75, after line 22, insert the following new section:
Sec. 407. Congress--
(1) urges the President and Secretary of State to
incorporate the investigative and preventative efforts of the
Government of Mexico in the bilateral agenda between the
Governments of Mexico and the United States and to continue
to express concern to the Government of Mexico over the
abductions and murders of more than 370 young women since
1993 in the Mexican cities of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua;
and
(2) supports efforts to identify unknown victims through
forensic analysis, including DNA testing, conducted by
independent, impartial experts who are sensitive to the
special needs and concerns of the victims' families, as well
as efforts to make these services available to any families
who have doubts about the results of prior forensic testing.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the abduction and murder of more
than 370 young women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico. That is
the community right across from my congressional district of El Paso,
Texas.
Specifically, my amendment urges the State Department to assist
Mexican authorities in identifying several unidentified victims through
forensic analysis and other scientific assistance; and this would
include also to put this subject into the bilateral agenda, which is a
discussion between both administrations on a yearly basis.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have personally asked our Federal
and local law enforcement agencies in El Paso to offer any assistance
that they can legally provide, and they have made and are making very
good efforts to help their counterparts on the Mexican side. Also, for
years I have called on the Mexican Government to bring an honest and
intensive investigative effort to bear on this issue so that it can
solve these horrific crimes and do more to prevent future tragedies,
which also, by the way, Mr. Chairman, included a conversation with
President Fox in Mexico City on this very issue.
In 2003, I joined several of my congressional colleagues on a
delegation to Juarez to meet with the families of these victims and to
increase awareness on this important matter. Some of the most poignant
testimony we heard was from families who have been unable to confirm
whether their loved ones and their remains have been found or whether
they are still missing.
As I have done in the past several years, this past weekend I raised
this issue at the Inter-Parliamentary Group meeting in Rhode Island
where several of my colleagues in Congress and our counterparts from
the Mexican legislature came together to discuss significant issues
that affect both the United States and Mexico.
This is an issue that has long been of particular concern to me and
to all of my constituents in El Paso because, along with Juarez, our
two cities form the largest border community in the world. Our
cultures, our economies and, most importantly, our families are
inseparably tied to each other in this region of the world. When they
need help, especially with something as horrific as murders that have
taken

[[Page H4509]]

place there, we need to step up and provide assistance, as all good
neighbors often do. This amendment would provide Mexican authorities
with additional assistance necessary to solve these crimes.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to assist
Mexican authorities in identifying these victims and to put the
perpetrators on the road to the penitentiary and to prevent violent
acts against women of Juarez and Chihuahua. I want to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to offer
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the abduction and murder of more
than 370 young women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico, near my
congressional district of El Paso, Texas. Specifically, my amendment
would urge the State Department to assist Mexican authorities in
identifying several unidentified victims through forensic analysis and
to include the topic in our bilateral agenda with Mexico.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have personally asked our federal
law enforcement agencies in El Paso to offer any assistance they can
legally provide, and they have made and are making good faith efforts
to help their counterparts on the Mexican side. Also, for years I have
called on the Mexican government to bring an honest and intensive
investigative effort to bear to solve these horrific crimes and to do
more to prevent future tragedies.
In 2003, I joined several of my congressional colleagues on a
delegation to Juarez to meet with the families of the victims and
increase awareness on this important matter. Some of the most poignant
testimony we heard was from families who have been unable to confirm
whether their loved ones' remains had been found or if they were still
missing.
As I have done in the past several years, this past weekend I raised
this issue at the Inter-Parliamentary Group where several of my
colleagues in Congress and our counterparts in the Mexican legislature
came together to discuss significant issues that affect both the U.S.
and Mexico.
This issue has long been of particular concern to me and my
constituents in El Paso because along with Juarez, our two cities form
the largest border community in the world. Our cultures, economies, and
most importantly, our families, are inseparably tied to each other.
When they need help, especially with something as horrific as the
murders that have taken place there, we need to step up to the plate
and provide assistance, as all good neighbors do. This amendment would
provide Mexican authorities with additional assistance necessary to
solve these crimes.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to assist
Mexican authorities in identifying the victims of these murders, put
the perpetrators behind bars, and prevent violent acts against the
women of Juarez and Chihuahua.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1200

Point of Order

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation
in an appropriation bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment proposes to express a legislative sentiment. As such,
the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in
order.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a list put out by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. It lists the 74 United States citizens
convicted of felonious crimes in the United States who are currently
living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime. This list
reads like a litany of the worst of the worst, hijacking an aircraft,
piracy; and, of course, the highlight to me and the most regrettable is
a woman by the name of Joanne Chesimard, who murdered in cold blood a
New Jersey State Trooper and has been on the lam and really in the
sanctuary of Cuba.
There are those in this body, I know, who take different sides on how
we deal with Cuba, whether it is trade or travel. This has nothing to
do with any of those, in my opinion.
We know that Cuba has been a haven and a sanctuary for terrorists. We
know that people like Joanne Chesimard are living comfortably, while
the family of that New Jersey State Trooper who was murdered two
decades ago, three decades ago I should say, are still living with the
agony and the pain of losing their loved one.
We know that people like Guillermo Morales, who was part of the FILN
who terrorized this country for many years, is living in Cuba. This is
a story from the Washington Post a couple of years ago. Guillermo
Morales is a fugitive on the run from the FBI, but at this particular
moment he is sipping a cappuccino in a chic hotel lobby in Havana.
Nine and a half of his fingers are gone, blown to bits by a bomb he
was making in New York in 1978, but he manages to open a packet of
sugar and stir it into his coffee. On the lam for 23 years, he has
cleverly learned how to live with what remains of his hands and his
life.
The convicted felon was facing 89 years in prison for illegal
possession of firearms when he escaped from a New York hospital in 1979
while under police custody.
Mr. Morales and so many of his cohorts terrorized this country, led
to the demise and permanent maiming of many individuals, including many
members of the New York City Police Department and other law
enforcement officials.
And what we wanted to do in an amendment, Mr. Chairman, is basically
get the truth out to the people of Cuba. Our effort would be to
disseminate through the United States Interest Section in Havana, and
next week we are meeting with folks from Radio and TV Marti to tell the
people of Cuba just the truth, just about transparency, that people
like Joanne Chesimard has a $1 million bounty on her head, and that if
returned to the United States, she would pay for her crime, and that
anybody basically participating in bringing this woman back to justice
as she rightly deserves will be the recipient of a million dollars.
So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, in ways to just get that truth out
for the legacy of those who have suffered at the hands of so many of
these fugitives or convicted felons, murderers, that the people of Cuba
just be told the truth. And we have the opportunity to do so through
the Interest Section in Havana as well as Radio and TV Marti.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella) for bringing this up. We will work with him and see what we
can do to help.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2006''.

TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

Antitrust Modernization Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Antitrust Modernization
Commission, as authorized by Public Law 107-273, $1,172,000,
to remain available until expended.

Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

salaries and expenses

For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad, $499,000, as authorized by section
1303 of Public Law 99-83.

Commission on Civil Rights

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,096,000:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time
individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service
exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more
than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson,
who is permitted 125 billable days.

Commission on International Religious Freedom

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-292), $3,200,000, to remain available until expended.

[[Page H4510]]

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304,
$2,030,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized,
$1,900,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of
official representation, to remain available until expended.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b);
non-monetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed
$33,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement
agencies for services to the Commission pursuant to title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections 6 and 14 of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
$331,228,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided
further, That the Commission may take no action to implement
any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization
until such time as the Committees on Appropriations have been
notified of such proposals, in accordance with the
reprogramming provisions of section 605 of this Act.

Federal Communications Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not
to exceed $4,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles; special
counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$289,771,000: Provided, That $288,771,000 of offsetting
collections shall be assessed and collected pursuant to
section 9 of title I of the Communications Act of 1934, shall
be retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2006 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006
appropriation estimated at $1,000,000: Provided further, That
any offsetting collections received in excess of $288,771,000
in fiscal year 2006 shall remain available until expended,
but shall not be available for obligation until October 1,
2006: Provided further, That any funds provided under this
heading used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall be
subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.

Federal Trade Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$211,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for use to
contract with a person or persons for collection services in
accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $116,000,000 of offsetting collections derived
from fees collected for premerger notification filings under
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15
U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection, shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation: Provided further, That $23,000,000 in
offsetting collections derived from fees sufficient to
implement and enforce the Telemarketing Sales Rule,
promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), shall be credited to
this account, and be retained and used for necessary expenses
in this appropriation: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2006,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation
from the general fund estimated at not more than $72,000,000:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available to
the Federal Trade Commission may be used to enforce
subsection (e) of section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act (12 U.S.C. 1831t) or section 151(b)(2) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12
U.S.C. 1831t note).

HELP Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the HELP Commission, $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

Legal Services Corporation

Payment to the Legal Services Corporation

For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
$330,803,000, of which $313,683,000 is for basic field
programs and required independent audits; $2,539,000 is for
the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $12,826,000 is for management and administration;
and $1,755,000 is for client self-help and information
technology.

Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation

None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Marine Mammal Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $1,865,000.

Securities and Exchange Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
$888,117,000, to remain available until expended; of which
not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward funding a permanent
secretariat for the International Organization of Securities
Commissions; and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be
available for expenses for consultations and meetings hosted
by the Commission with foreign governmental and other
regulatory officials, members of their delegations,
appropriate representatives and staff to exchange views
concerning developments relating to securities matters,
development and implementation of cooperation agreements
concerning securities matters and provision of technical
assistance for the development of foreign securities markets,
such expenses to include necessary logistic and
administrative expenses and the expenses of Commission staff
and foreign invitees in attendance at such consultations and
meetings including: (1) such incidental expenses as meals
taken in the course of such attendance; (2) any travel and
transportation to or from such meetings; and (3) any other
related lodging or subsistence: Provided, That fees and
charges authorized by sections 6(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)), and 13(e), 14(g) and
31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(e),
78n(g), and 78ee), shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections: Provided further, That not to exceed
$863,117,000 of such offsetting collections shall be
available until expended for necessary expenses of this
account: Provided further, That $25,000,000 shall be derived
from prior year unobligated balances from funds previously
appropriated to the Securities and Exchange Commission:
Provided further, That the total amount appropriated under
this heading from the general fund for fiscal year 2006 shall
be reduced as such offsetting fees are received so as to
result in a final total fiscal year 2006 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

Small Business Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
108-447, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$318,029,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by
the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing
activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be
credited to this account, to be available for carrying out
these purposes without further appropriations: Provided
further, That, of the funds made available under this
heading, $1,000,000 shall be for the National Veterans
Business Development Corporation: Provided further, That any
funds provided under this heading used to implement E-
Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures set
forth in section 605 of this Act.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $13,500,000.

Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund

For additional capital for the Surety Bond Guarantees
Revolving Fund, authorized by the Small Business Investment
Act, as amended, $2,861,000, to remain available until
expended.

Business Loans Program Account

For the cost of direct loans, $1,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided,

[[Page H4511]]

That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That subject to section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, during fiscal
year 2006 commitments to guarantee loans under section 503 of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, shall not exceed
$6,000,000,000: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2006 commitments for general business loans authorized under
section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, shall not exceed
$16,500,000,000: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2006 commitments to guarantee loans for debentures under
section 303(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958,
shall not exceed $3,000,000,000: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2006 guarantees of trust certificates
authorized by section 5(g) of the Small Business Act shall
not exceed a principal amount of $12,000,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $124,961,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.

Disaster Loans Program Account

For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, $79,538,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program authorized by section 7(b), of the Small
Business Act, $49,716,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses, of
which $900,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of the
Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of
disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office
of Inspector General; of which $40,316,000 is for direct
administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry
out the direct loan program, to remain available until
expended; and of which $8,500,000 is for indirect
administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount in excess
of $8,500,000 to be transferred to and merged with
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.

Administrative Provision--Small Business Administration

Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

State Justice Institute

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572), $2,000,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses.

United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, $4,000,000, including not
more than $5,000 for the purpose of official representation,
to remain available until expended.

United States Institute of Peace

Operating Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $22,850,000, to remain available until expended.

Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 88, line 20 be considered
as read and printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this section?

Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. 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 Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
Page 85, line 6, insert after ``this Act'' the following:
``: Provided further, That of the funds made available under
this heading, $5,000,000 shall be for operational assistance
grants under Part B of title III of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 689 et seq.), as authorized
by section 368 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 689q), and $30,000,000
shall be for guarantees of debentures under Part B of title
III of such Act, as authorized by section 20 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) as amended by section 121
of division K of Public Law 108-447''

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which seeks to
restore funding for a program of vital importance to distressed and
blighted communities, both in urban and rural areas which are being
left behind at an astounding pace in our global economy.
The New Market Venture Capital program really was designed by this
House in 2000 for the purpose of making equity investments in small
businesses that operate in economically distressed communities through
the creation of the New Market Venture Capital companies.
Most conventional venture firms, of course, are very risk-averse to
invest in these economically distressed areas, and this program was
designed to fill that gap in access to capital.
During the first round of awards, the New Market Venture Capital
program developed a company to serve Appalachia, the Central
Appalachian region of Ohio, Kentucky, Maryland and West Virginia, and
they invested this first round $2.8 million in four companies to help
these rural communities.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $30 million in debenture
guarantees and $5 million for operational assistance grants to fund the
creation of a fresh round of New Market Venture Capital companies. And
it is paid for by using funds from the Small Business Administration's
salary and expense account.
Mr. Chairman, I have given you an example of how we have helped small
rural areas, but I would like to call your attention to my own
community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which I think bears mentioning.
In 2002, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 59 percent of
African American males in Milwaukee were unemployed and out of the
workforce. Since 1999, the unemployed residents of any color has
increased by 80 percent. And in the last 5 years we have lost 33,000
manufacturing jobs. We know, of course, that small businesses create 75
percent of all new jobs and account for 99 percent of all employers.
Mr. Chairman, I would think that this would be a grand bipartisan
effort. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the new markets program was intended to be a pilot
project from fiscal year 2001 to 2006. There are still funds available
for this program. There is no need to provide additional funds at this
time, especially at the expense of terminating over 400 employees at
the SBA. This would result in the termination, which would not be good
for anyone. These employees work on critical technical assistance and
loan programs at the SBA.
The amendment unnecessarily provides funds for a program that has
almost $2 million left in its budget for technical assistance and over
$3.1 million in loan authority. The program received a one-time funding
of $59 million in fiscal year 2001 that has still not been entirely
spent.
I urge the Members to reject the amendment. Particularly we would not
want to cut employees who work on programs like small business
development centers and women's business centers. So I understand what
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) is doing, but I would urge
that we reject the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

[[Page H4512]]

Wolf) for his stewardship over these funds. I just want to respond to a
couple of things that he said.
First of all, the balance of those funds for the New Venture Capital
Program has been rescinded, so it is not available for another round.
Also, you know, I do not know where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) received his figures about displacing 400 employees at the SBA.
Certainly, I support the SBA and its functions, but we are talking here
in this amendment about distressed communities and not disadvantages
bureaucrats.
Mr. Chairman, I would offer to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
that if he were upset about the source of funding for this amendment,
that he would not disparage the wonderful purpose of this amendment,
but would rather seek to work with me to find ways to do this.
Surely we have an employment crisis. This initiative will help
distressed communities versus just trying to buoy up a bureaucracy. Mr.
Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to work
with me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time also.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the
bill?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the
committee.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to just take a few minutes to tell
you that I had intended to offer and withdraw an amendment today. It is
brief, but very important for the future of the United States. The
amendment would have simply said none of the funds made available in
this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration
of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American
business.
The reason this is important is because today the American economy is
number one in the world, and it is the envy of the world. But there are
some troubling signs. We have a trade deficit last year of $670
billion. This year's Federal deficit is down, but it is still over $300
billion.
We have seen high-paying, high-quality jobs move overseas. Now, these
signs should concern Members of Congress, but should not surprise them,
because over the last generation, legislation has been passed on the
floor of this House that has put our number one standing in jeopardy
and caused us to struggle to keep our economy as number one in the
world, and clearly it is in jeopardy.
Legislation that has become law and then become regulation is forcing
this struggle to occur within our economy. Regulations are one of the
eight issues that we hope to address this year to help make America
more competitive. These issues are actually barriers that keep us from
keeping and creating jobs here in America. In addition to the
regulations, we also want to address health care issues, education
issues, research and development issues, energy policy issues, trade
policy, tax policy and lawsuit abuse issues.
Today, though, I wanted to focus on regulations because it drives
such a burden and barrier to our economy. First, though, I want to
compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and acknowledge
what a great job the gentleman has done on this bill to make sure our
competitiveness is addressed.
First of all, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) placed the
National Science Foundation as a priority in the tight fiscal year with
an increase of $44 million above the President's request.
The report language says America's advantage in science, math and
technology is slipping. Our systems of basic scientific research and
education are in crisis. While our countries are redoubling their
efforts, the United States can remain the world's technology leader if
it makes the commitment to do so.
It also has $3 million for the International Trade Administration and
the Department of Commerce for the Office of China Compliance. And we
need to continue our efforts to make sure that there is no antidumping
policies going on through the Chinese Government.
With this bill we give the agencies with oversight of our science and
technology policy and trade policy, commerce and small business
development the tools to help American employers improve their
competitiveness. Now we need to make sure they follow through with
policies that reflect Congress' priorities.
It is my hope that each and every Federal agency should take into
consideration the proposed policies on competitiveness of U.S. business
and be held accountable for those effects.
To give you just a small idea how difficult it is because of
regulations to start a business in America, I went to the Small
Business Administration Web site, and I just listed some of the things
that they have as what you need to consider before you start a
business. First you need to get a business license; that could be your
State, county or city. You should go to their Web site.

{time} 1215

There is then a certificate of occupancy. That is also a city and
county zoning problem. There is business organization, whether you are
a sole proprietor, a partnership, a corporation, or a limited liability
company. Then you have to register your trade name.
Then you have to apply for trademarks, patents, and copyrights. If it
is a trademark, it is a State registration and a Federal registration
through the Department of Commerce. If it is a patent issue, it is to
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If it is a copyright, you go to
the U.S. Library of Congress. If it is tax information, you have
Federal taxes, you have State taxes, you have local taxes. There is
also self-employment tax. There is business insurance, sales tax
numbers; and it just goes on and on, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to tell my colleagues it is difficult to start businesses
here. We have to stop creating barriers and remove them so that America
can be competitive in the future and so that we can retain our number
one standing.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for his
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill
through page 106, line 22, be considered as read and printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 106, line 22, is
as follows:

TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act,
or provided under previous appropriations Acts to the
agencies funded by this Act that remain available for
obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or provided
from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States
derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies
funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or
expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that: (1)
creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or
activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for
any project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5)
reorganizes or renames offices; (6) reorganizes, programs or
activities; or (7) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act

[[Page H4513]]

that remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal
year 2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of
the United States derived by the collection of fees available
to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for activities, programs, or
projects through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments
existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10
percent funding for any existing program, project, or
activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as approved
by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings,
including savings from a reduction in personnel, which would
result in a change in existing programs, activities, or
projects as approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in
advance of such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any
guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
covering harassment based on religion, when it is made known
to the Federal entity or official to which such funds are
made available that such guidelines do not differ in any
respect from the proposed guidelines published by the
Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 607. If it has been finally determined by a court or
Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label
bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription
with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, the
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds made available in this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that: (1) the United Nations
undertaking is a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking
will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or
operational control of a foreign national; and (3) the
President's military advisors have not submitted to the
President a recommendation that such involvement is in the
national security interests of the United States and the
President has not submitted to the Congress such a
recommendation.
Sec. 609. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the National Science Foundation, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Small Business Administration shall
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
of the House of Representatives a quarterly accounting of the
cumulative balances of any unobligated funds that were
received by such agency during any previous fiscal year.
Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2006.
Sec. 611. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 612. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 613. (a) None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act shall be expended for
any purpose for which appropriations are prohibited by
section 616 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of
section 616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2006.
Sec. 614. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to
this Act or any other provision of law may be used for--
(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection
with the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18,
United States Code; and
(2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title
18, United States Code, that does not require and result in
the destruction of any identifying information submitted by
or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more
than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms
licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the
prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or
(n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State
law.
Sec. 615. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of
the Department of Justice to obligate more than $625,000,000
during fiscal year 2006 from the Fund established by section
1402 of chapter XIV of title II of Public Law 98-473 (42
U.S.C. 10601).
Sec. 616. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 617. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available to the Department of State shall be available
for the purpose of granting either immigrant or nonimmigrant
visas, or both, consistent with the determination of the
Secretary of State under section 243(d) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or
residents of countries that the Secretary of Homeland
Security has determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting
the return of citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents
under that section.
Sec. 618. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority
provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 619. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Small
Business Administration shall, not later than two months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, certify that
telecommuting opportunities have increased over levels
certified to the Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year
2005: Provided, That, of the total amounts appropriated to
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Small Business
Administration, $5,000,000 shall be available to each only
upon such certification: Provided further, That each
Department or agency shall provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations on the status of telecommuting
programs, including the number and percentage of Federal
employees eligible for, and participating in, such programs:
Provided further, That each Department or agency shall
maintain a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be responsible for
overseeing the implementation and operations of telecommuting
programs, and serve as a point of contact on such programs
for the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 620. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the National Science Foundation shall, not
later than two months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, certify that telecommuting opportunities are made
available to 100 percent of the eligible workforce: Provided,
That, of the total amounts appropriated to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation, $5,000,000 shall be available to each agency only
upon such certification: Provided further, That both agencies
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations on the status of telecommuting programs,
including the number of Federal employees eligible for, and
participating in, such programs: Provided further, That both
agencies shall designate a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be
responsible for overseeing the implementation and operations
of telecommuting programs, and serve as a point of contact on
such programs for the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 621. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released
without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the
data.
(b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives shall include in all such data releases, language
similar to the following that would make clear that trace
data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-
related crime:
(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement
authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale
and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies
may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons
are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not
all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms
traced are used in crime.
(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for
purposes of determining which types, makes or models of
firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected
do not constitute a random sample and should not be
considered representative of the larger universe of all
firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe.
Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and
sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily
represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general
are acquired for use in crime.
Sec. 622. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used in violation of section 212(a)(10)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

[[Page H4514]]

Sec. 623. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under this Act may be used to issue patents on
claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Sec. 624. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation
to any specialized agency, body, or commission of the United
Nations if such commission is chaired or presided over by a
country, the government of which the Secretary of State has
determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has
provided support for acts of international terrorism.
Sec. 625. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a
project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United
States may not include office space or other accommodations
for an employee of a Federal agency or department if the
Secretary of State determines that such department or agency
has not provided to the Department of State the full amount
of funding required by subsection (e) of section 604 of the
Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999
(as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-
113 and contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-
453), as amended by section 629 of the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.
(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in subsection (a), a
project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United
States may include office space or other accommodations for
members of the Marine Corps.
Sec. 626. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the
use of torture by any official or contract employee of the
United States Government.
Sec. 627. Of the amounts made available in this Act,
$393,616,321 from ``Department of State''; $27,938,072 from
``Department of Justice''; $14,107,754 from ``Department of
Commerce''; $426,314 from ``United States Trade
Representative''; $575,116 from ``Broadcasting Board of
Governors''; $291,855 from ``National Aeronautics and Space
Administration''; and $79,754 from ``National Science
Foundation'' shall be available for the purposes of
implementing the Capital Security Cost Sharing program.
Sec. 628. 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)).
Sec. 629. None of the funds made available to NASA in
this Act may be used for voluntary separation incentive
payments as provided for in subchapter II of chapter 35 of
title 5, United States Code, unless the Administrator of NASA
has first certified to Congress that such payments would not
result in the loss of skills related to the safety of the
Space Shuttle or the International Space Station or to the
conduct of independent safety oversight in the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Sec. 630. Notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 524, 571, and 572,
the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration may sell the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration-owned property on the Camp Parks Military
Reservation, Alameda County, California, and credit the net
proceeds of such sales as offsetting collections to its
Exploration, science and aeronautics account. Such funds
shall be available until expended; to be used to replace the
facilities at Camp Parks that are still required, to improve
other National Aeronautics and Space Administration-owned
facilities, or both.
Sec. 631. (a) In General.--The President of the United
States through his designee the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and in consultation with
other Federal agencies shall develop a national aeronautics
policy to guide the aeronautics programs of the
Administration through 2020.
(b) Content.--At a minimum, the national aeronautics
policy shall describe--
(1) the priority areas of research for aeronautics
through fiscal year 2011;
(2) the basis on which and the process by which
priorities for ensuing fiscal years will be selected;
(3) the facilities and personnel needed to carry out the
program through fiscal year 2011; and
(4) the budget assumptions on which the national
aeronautics policy is based.
(c) Considerations.--In developing the national
aeronautics policy, the Administrator shall consider the
following questions, which shall be discussed in the policy
statement--
(1) the extent to which NASA should focus on long-term,
high-risk research or more incremental research or both and
the expected impact on the U.S. aircraft and airline
industries of those decisions;
(2) the extent to which NASA should address military and
commercial needs;
(3) how NASA will coordinate its aeronautics program with
other Federal agencies; and
(4) the extent to which NASA will fund university
research and the expected impact of that funding on the
supply of U.S. workers for the aeronautics industry.
(d) Consultation.--In developing the national aeronautics
policy, the Administrator shall consult widely with academic
and industry experts and with other Federal agencies. The
Administrator may enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences to help develop the national aeronautics
policy.
(e) Schedule.--The Administrator shall submit the new
national aeronautics policy to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and to the House Committee on
Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation no later than the date on which the President
submits the proposed budget for the Federal government for
fiscal year 2007 to the Congress. The Administrator shall
make available to the Congress any study done by a non-
governmental entity that was used in the development of the
national aeronautics policy.
Sec. 632. Any funds provided in this Act under ``National
Science Foundation'' used to implement E-Government
Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures set forth in
section 605 of this Act.
Sec. 633. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or treaty, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or
obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate
an officer or employee of the United States in connection
with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of
components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms
listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of
Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms
Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005)
with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any
transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b)
of this section are met by the exporting party for such
articles.
(b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export
license--
(1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's
Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or
from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United
States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles
enumerated in subsection (a); and
(2) does not permit the export without a license of--
(A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for
such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal
Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of
Canada, or
(B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete
breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other
than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial
or Municipal Government of Canada; or
(C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign
destination.
(c) In accordance with this section, the District
Directors of Customs and postmasters shall permit the
permanent or temporary export without a license of any
unclassified articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada
for end use in Canada or return to the United States, or
temporary import of Canadian-origin items from Canada for end
use in the United States or return to Canada for a Canadian
citizen.
(d) The President may require export licenses under this
section on a temporary basis if the President determines,
upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the
Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate
import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a),
such that a significant diversion of such articles has and
continues to take place for use in international terrorism or
in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The
President shall terminate the requirements of a license when
reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
Sec. 634. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act
shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay
administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or
employee of the United States to deny any application
submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified
pursuant to 27 CFR Sec. 478.112 or .113, for a permit to
import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms,
parts, or ammunition.
Sec. 635. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to include in any bilateral or multilateral trade
agreement the text of--
(1) paragraph 2 of Article 16.7 of the United States-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
(2) paragraph 4 of Article 17.9 of the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
(3) paragraph 4 of Article 15.9 of the United States-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this portion of the
bill?

Point of Order

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
607. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes
to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page H4515]]

The Chair finds that this provision proposes to change existing law
with respect to eligibility requirements to receive a Federal contract
with funds made available by this act.
The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the bill through page 108, line 7, be considered as read and printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 108, line 7, is as
follows:

TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Legal Activities

assets forfeiture fund

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$62,000,000 are rescinded.

Office of Justice Programs

state and local law enforcement assistance

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$38,500,000 are rescinded.

community oriented policing services

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$86,500,000 are rescinded.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Emergency steel guaranteed loan program account

(RESCISSION)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading
from prior year appropriations, $35,000,000 are rescinded.

RELATED AGENCIES

United States-Canada Alaska Rail Commission

salaries and expenses

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading
from prior year appropriations, $2,000,000 are rescinded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT. 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. McDermott:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba
(including travel for the purpose of visiting a member of the
immediate family of such individual).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Science, State,
Justice, Commerce appropriations bill; and I do this in the name of
freedom and justice for all Americans.
I call it the Carlos Lazo amendment, named for a brave U.S. soldier
from Seattle who has been denied his right and freedom to visit his
children in Cuba because of onerous new travel restrictions imposed by
this administration.
Sergeant Lazo is a medic in a combat unit that served for a year in
Fallujah, one of the most dangerous places in Iraq. He is a shining
example of everything positive about America and about the men and
women who serve in the Armed Forces.
But Carlos Lazo has been victimized by the administration's policy
which has gone tilt. Carlos is caught up in the latest ploy by the
United States Government to topple Castro. This time the administration
is banking on restricting travel to overthrow the Castro government.
The greatest impact from this new policy is that Sergeant Carlos Lazo
cannot visit his children in Cuba. One man desires only to be a father
on Father's Day.
This is a man who risked his life in defense of America, a man who
risked his life to reach America on a raft, a man who wants only to see
and hug his children, a man in uniform defending America even as
America denies his freedoms.
Last June, Carlos tried to visit his children in Cuba before the
stringent new travel restrictions were put into effect. He was on leave
from Iraq and went to Miami to board a charter flight to Cuba, but he
was turned away because flights were flying empty to Cuba.
There he stood in his uniform, having just come back from the combat
zone. He stood in an airport with a ticket in his hand, barred from a
chance to visit his children, denied the most basic freedom in this
country.
Carlos returned to the war zone in Iraq without seeing his children.
That is the way it will stay unless the government intercedes.
Current law allows Americans to visit a family in Cuba only once
every 3 years. No exceptions are made for soldiers serving abroad,
families with medical emergencies, or other hardship cases.
As it stands now, Carlos can do nothing except wait for an arbitrary
deadline to expire. It will take another year before he can go to Cuba.
He is a naturalized American father who has been caught up in a
national obsession to overthrow Castro. Decade after decade, plot after
plot, the facts remain the same.
The policy, or the plot, call it what you will, the new travel
restrictions inflict pain and suffering on an American, not Castro.
Carlos is a person, not a political pawn, a soldier who defended his
country and asks only for his country to defend his freedom.
He came to America on a raft in the 1990s. Since then he has made a
new home and a new life. He has given back to his country and served
with distinction. He is a patriot.
The least we can do is allow Carlos to visit his children in Cuba.
Allowing him to travel to Cuba would say much more about freedom and
opportunity in America than any new administration policy.
You want to hurt Castro, send Carlos to see his children. His
freedom, like any American, to travel freely and speak freely and act
freely will say more about what America stands for than all the
rhetoric and rules the administration could ever implement.
The Department of Treasury oversees the travel ban. So far they have
refused to grant him any kind of waiver. It will take us to cut through
that.
Let Carlos be reunited with his children in Cuba in time for Father's
Day. There is room in the heartland of America to have a heart.
I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
I think Members ought to know that the U.S. State Department lists
the Cuban dictatorship as one of five remaining state sponsors of
terror. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria.
According to the State Department's most recent patterns of global
terrorism, Cuba continues to support foreign terrorist organizations
and several terrorists and dozens of fugitives from the U.S., as the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) just spoke.
Also, if anyone is listening on the other side, I have sincerely
asked for the opportunity to visit the country of Cuba through the
legal ways. Everyone who always wants to lift the sanctions gets to go,
but in a sincere effort at going down to find out what happens, I never
can go. Something tells me there is something funny about this. We want
to go on good faith. We ask to go through the normal process. We cannot
get there.
I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge the rejection of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia
for the time.
I, too, rise in opposition to the McDermott amendment. At a time when
the promotion of the rule of law and the consolidation of democratic
institutions are pivotal to our U.S. national security strategy, we
should not and we must not support an amendment that runs contrary to
this commitment.

[[Page H4516]]

This amendment is proposing that we interfere with law enforcement;
that we interfere with the U.S. courts by prohibiting the use of
taxpayer funds to prosecute those who are traveling to Cuba in
violation of U.S. law. What happened to the separation of powers, an
element that is one of the centerpieces of our constitutional system?
As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) pointed out, we had just
talked about U.S. fugitives that are given safe haven by the Castro
regime in Cuba in an effort to bring them to justice. We want them to
come here to the United States. How can we now turn around and support
an amendment today that would essentially afford congressional
protection to U.S. lawbreakers?
Support for this amendment would empower the enemies of the United
States, such as the Castro dictatorship, and we must reject the
McDermott amendment.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the amendments
made to section 740.12 of title 15, Code of Federal
Regulations (relating to license exemptions for gift parcels
and humanitarian donations for Cuba), as published in the
Federal Register on June 22, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 34565-34567).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply seeks to prohibit the use of
funds from enforcing a particularly onerous rule with regard to Cuba.
There is a section of the code in the U.S. Federal regulation that
governs the sending of gift parcels to countries for which there are
otherwise strict limits of what can be sent.
Under the heading of ``Eligible Commodities,'' it reads: ``For Cuba,
the only eligible commodities are food, medicines, medical supplies,
radio equipment and battery for such equipment.''
Any reasonable person would agree that we should be permitted to send
such items to ordinary Cubans.
In reading the next paragraph, however, we are told what cannot be
sent in gift parcels to Cubans, and these restrictions apply only to
Cuba: clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and
supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment, as
well as any other items normally sent as gifts.
In other words, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations does not permit
the sending of gift parcels to Cuba containing clothes, personal
hygiene items, seeds and other very basic goods, goods that would
modestly improve the lot of ordinary Cubans.
It just seems silly to me, Mr. Chairman, that ordinary Americans
cannot send to ordinary Cubans items like toothpaste and toilet paper.
That is what this amendment is all about.
When the opponents rise and take their time, they will talk about
obviously the awful dictator that Fidel Castro is, and he is. That is
precisely why we need to reverse this. The Cuban people have enough
burdens placed upon them living under Fidel Castro.
Why impose additional burdens on them by denying their relatives the
ability to send personal hygiene items to them? What will denying
toothpaste and toilet paper do to the regime in Cuba? I would submit
that we are not going to prop up the regime in Cuba by sending toilet
paper and toothpaste.
President Reagan once said, We must be careful in reacting to actions
of the Soviet government not to take out our indignations on those not
responsible. That is exactly what this amendment is seeking to reverse.
We are taking out our indignations on Fidel Castro by imposing
restrictions on what family members and relatives can send to ordinary
Cubans. It is simply wrong.
America is a better country than that. We ought to stand taller than
that. That is what we are trying to do here.
Keep in mind, if a Boy Scout from Mesa, Arizona, or somewhere in
Virginia or Indiana or any State of the Union does a good turn for the
day and sends soap or soup or tomato seeds to someone in Cuba, that
would be a violation of the U.S. Code. If a Girl Scout in Michigan or
Kansas happens to have a cousin in Cuba with a broken leg, the
regulations would not allow her to send crutches to her Cuban cousin.
Again, that is forbidden by our regulation.
What has our policy come to? Whatever happened to the proverb that
says if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime? Yet we
prohibit sending a fishing line and hooks so ordinary Cubans can have a
better meal. The Government of Cuba is making it difficult for Cubans
to feed themselves. So why can Americans not send fishing poles and
hooks to them?

{time} 1230

Who really believes a small service project by a Boy or Girl Scout
would actually be propping up the brutal Castro regime, which has
unfortunately served 45 years on its own?
I am not trying to trivialize the serious nature of the issues we are
dealing with in Cuba. It simply is wrong to deny ordinary Americans the
ability to send gift items like this to ordinary Cubans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, for all the good intentions of its author and
proponents of this amendment, it is just bad policy. It operates under
the notion that in a postal system packages are delivered on time, they
are unopened, and at no undue cost to the addressee. But the postal
service in Fidel Castro's Cuba does not operate like the postal service
in the hometown of the gentleman from Arizona. Instead, all the
packages, most of which are from family members trying to help their
relatives struggling to survive in Castro's command economy, are
immediately seized by the state and held essentially as the personal
property of the Maximum Leader in a central depository somewhere in
Havana.
This really happens. The packages are opened, they are rummaged
through, and they are pilfered, after which, in the best-case scenario,
the addressee is called and told how much of a service charge it will
cost them to get their parcel. That is what happens in a Communist
country with a dictator. Every dime of goods contained in those
packages, what is left in them after they are rifled through, is a dime
Castro's regime does not have to spend on services for his people and,
therefore, a dime he can spend on another torture chamber, a few more
secret police officers, or a deposit in his Swiss bank account.
The only suffering or hardship that this amendment would erase is
Fidel Castro's. He is a murderer, and he is a thief. His government is
a thugocracy, and his postal service, if you can call it that, is a
profit center for a massive criminal enterprise of oppression and
terror. Resources that make their way into Cuba, whatever their origin,
whatever the original intent of their transmission, have only one
purpose, one purpose: To enrich, entrench, and empower a regime that
has kidnapped, imprisoned, and murdered 100,000-plus Cuban citizens
over the last 45 years.
The Bush administration has rightly concluded that the only good Cuba
policy is one that expedites the collapse of the Castro regime. To
loosen the administration's rules would be to reward Castro for his
recent brutal crackdown on democratic dissidents, dozens of whom remain
in his prisons. To loosen the rules would send a signal, a signal,
words have consequences when we speak them on this floor, and if this
amendment passes loosening these rules, it would send a signal to those

[[Page H4517]]

brave, peaceful dissidents and their families that the United States
has tired of the struggle against totalitarianism.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot send such a signal. We cannot reward this
tyrant and his terrorist state. We cannot allow this amendment to
become law. We must stand with the Cuban people, stand with the Cuban
people in their struggle against Castro and deny him the opportunity to
exploit American generosity.
Vote for the Cuban people. Vote against Castro's regime. Vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to the majority leader's comments, that I would think standing
with the Cuban people would be to allow them to receive personal
hygiene items, like toothpaste and toilet paper. Keep in mind these
restrictions are imposed against Americans, not Cubans. These are
imposed against American families from sending to relatives in Cuba
these items. These are not restrictions on Castro. These are
restrictions on Americans.
We that believe in freedom ought to give Cuban Americans and others
the freedom to make the choice, do we send gift parcels or do we not?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that I feel confident in doing is to reassure
my friend, the majority leader, that denying the Cuban people
toothpaste and toilet paper will not bring down Fidel Castro. The
reality is that Fidel Castro has been in power for more than 45 years,
despite the existence of an embargo on a whole variety of items. What
we have done by denying families here in the United States the ability
to send toilet paper and toothpaste to their families back in Cuba is
to deny something very fundamental that reflects the deepest American
tradition and values of helping our extended families who still live in
their countries of origin.
At one level it is about toothpaste and toilet paper, but the real
issue here is about family. That is what this is about. Let us not even
make this a debate about Fidel Castro, because, trust me, Fidel Castro
will survive whether there is an ounce of toothpaste that goes into
Cuba from a Cuban American family. That is not what this amendment is
about.
I respect the fact that there is diversity of opinion in terms of how
we deal with the Castro government, but let us get past the politics
and understand that this is about family, because I can assure you that
standing with the Cuban people means to provide them the kind of
assistance on a regular basis so that they can live a life, at least in
their home, in the privacy of their daily existence, a life that has
some dignity. Some dignity. That is the least we can do for the Cuban
people.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the way that the
Cuban people will regain their dignity is to regain their freedom.
While they are oppressed by a regime that denies them all human rights
and denies them their dignity, they will not be able to live as all
peoples are meant to.
Let us remind ourselves what we are dealing with here. As the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) stated, there are five remaining
terrorist states in the world, after the fall of Saddam Hussein and the
liberation of Iraq. Five remaining terrorist states. But the FBI will
tell you, and I would request our colleagues seek this information and
this briefing from the FBI, that the most aggressive and dangerous
anti-American espionage service of those five terrorist states
remaining is the one of the Cuban dictatorship.
Yes, it is a bankrupt economy. Castro does not care about the
suffering of the Cuban people. He does care about one thing, though:
Intelligence services to fight against the interests of the leader of
the free world, the United States. Nineteen Cuban agents, designated as
spies, were expelled from the United States in recent years because of
their work as spies. Fourteen members of Castro's spy network have been
indicted and are in Federal prison today.
The President of the United States, a year ago, after much study,
came forth with a very serious and comprehensive policy, which is very
similar to the Reagan administration's policy towards the Soviet Union.
One of the ingredients of President Bush's policy with regard to the
Cuban dictatorship, one of five remaining anti-American terrorist
states, is the reduction of hard currency to that regime.
Now, as was stated by the majority leader, Castro extorts payment
even on humanitarian packages, at both ends of the process. The bottom
line is that these regulations permit humanitarian aid to continue. Our
constituents are the ones who send that humanitarian aid.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the time is remaining and who
has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 7 minutes
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding me this time and for his leadership, his continued leadership,
and his exhaustive leadership on this issue.
I really had not intended to speak on this issue. I came down to
speak to an amendment that I am prepared to offer against this
legislation. But I just heard my good friend and our leader on the
majority side make some statements relative to the uncertainty and the
government's ability to look through any matter of package that may go
from the United States to Cuba.
I would just remind the leader, although I see he has already left
the floor, and other people in this audience that under the PATRIOT
Act, what is the difference between our policy toward Cuba today and
our policy toward our own people? That package could be in the hands of
our postal service, which is supposed to be sacrosanct, and our
government can go through it, by the way, by administrative rule rather
than by the balance of the court providing for that request. It can be
in our bank, it can be in our library, it can be, quite frankly, over
the safety of the threshold of our own homes, and our government can
still go and look through those packages.
So I would say it is an argument that has no teeth, because if we are
going to criticize a government 90 miles off our shore for that kind of
action, we ought to be taking a look in our own back yard before we
move in that direction.
I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, we are hearing an awful lot
about CAFTA these days, and I would just tell you that if CAFTA truly
offers all of the great promise that we are told by everybody, and that
by treating these fledgling democracies, these people that really want
to be a democracy in these five other nations, why didn't we go sell
that to Cuba?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is important to
defeat this amendment. I thought I heard it all on this floor, but to
hear a thugocracy called a fledgling democracy is something I never
thought I would hear here. It is a regime of gangsters by gangsters and
for gangsters, against which President Bush has a very important and
solid policy that will succeed. Cuba will soon be free.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues today is to continue to stand with
the Cuban people against the thugocracy and to defeat this amendment.

{time} 1245

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
We have heard the proponents of this amendment argue that they want
to revoke U.S. policy toward the Cuban dictatorship. They say they are
doing it to help the Cuban people. When we

[[Page H4518]]

speak of helping the Cuban people, we need to focus on their freedom.
Help is liberty. Help is working to ensure that every Cuban can speak
their minds and not be imprisoned and not be beaten up for it. True
humanitarian assistance is that which is not manipulated by the
dictatorship in order to strengthen its own stranglehold on the Cuban
people. Providing the tyrannical ruler with an escape valve to the
dictatorship, that is not helping the Cuban people.
If we truly want to help the Cuban people, let us do so by working
towards the day that Cubans from every background, every race, every
ethnicity, and every religion will be able to live freely, free from
fear and free from intimidation in a truly democratic Cuba.
Despite years of repression, there is a growing independent civil
society movement on the island. Cubans today are trying, against the
dictatorship, to organize themselves as independent journalists and
independent librarians. Let us help them liberate themselves from
totalitarianism, and the way to do that is to send true humanitarian
aid, aid that is freedom and liberty and justice.
More than $1 billion is sent annually in funds and goods, sent to
Cuba from those living outside of the island through various methods.
Castro is making a lot of money, and little of it is going to benefit
the Cuban people. So while Castro and his cronies continue to enrich
themselves so they can maintain their hold on the Cuban people, what is
happening to the Cuban people? They are left to struggle and suffer as
a result of the dictatorship's failed policies.
It is not the U.S.'s fault that the Cuban people are in misery; it is
Castro's fault. The U.S. policy is to help the Cuban people bring
freedom, bring liberty, and bring that voice of justice that they so
desperately need. Let us stand with the Cuban people today and reject
the Flake amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting, the gentleman mentioned that our
constituents send these packages. If that is true, why would they if
they are all opened and money is taken off the top? That may well be
the case, but they make that choice. They ought to make that choice. My
constituents ought to have that choice. That is what America is about,
allowing people to have the freedom to make that choice.
This amendment will allow them that freedom. The current policy
restricts their freedom to make that choice. They are told they cannot
send these items. Again, it is back to toothpaste and toilet paper.
That is what we are talking about here.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when I listen to this
debate, I am reminded of the phrase ``the more things change, the more
they remain the same.''
This is very similar to the debate when the Soviet Union was still in
existence and President Reagan had a comprehensive policy to try to
eliminate that regime. And the debate is the same: it is going to hurt
the people. When President Reagan was trying to cut off the funding: it
is going to hurt the Soviet people; they are the victims.
No. No, Ronald Reagan was right then; George W. Bush is right today,
which is why the Assembly of Civil Society, the umbrella organization,
opposition organization within Cuba, that just recently had a heroic
meeting in Havana, publicly supports the President's policy. They
understand that dignity is not a gift. They understand that the only
true road to dignity is freedom: freedom of election, freedom of
association, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
This amendment would go a long way to reversing the policy that is
working. Just as many wanted to reverse Reagan's policy that succeeded
in defeating the Soviet Union, this amendment is trying to reverse the
Bush policy that will ultimately allow the Cuban people to live in
freedom, the freedom that they so much deserve.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me once again remind Members what this is all
about. We all know the brutality of the Castro regime and how they
deprive people of basic goods. Because of that, why in the world do we
add to their burdens? Why do we deny Americans, Cuban families, Cuban-
American families the ability to send items to their families? That is
what this amendment is about.
We will hear all kinds of things about the brutality of the regime.
Let us stipulate that. I have been there several times. It is worse
than anybody knows. It is awful. People there live with such burdens.
Let us not burden them further.
Let me say, last year when this amendment was offered, the opponents
were saying the administration is going to change it. This amendment
will be moot. Those regulations will change. There has been a public
outcry; it is going to change. Guess what, a year later it is still
there. The restrictions are still there, yet we heard they are going to
change. Well, they have not changed. We need to send a signal this
policy cannot stand.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I would also like to
say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), I would love to go down
to Cuba; and I would ask if the gentleman can intercede for both of us
to go together, and that would be an unusual trip.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I have no beef with the Cuban government.
Mr. WOLF. But the gentleman has been there several times.
Mr. FLAKE. I have never met with Castro, and I have no desire to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has been there a couple of
times and I have not, maybe the gentleman can try to help me. I would
like to go.
Cuba is a source country for children trafficked internally for the
purposes of sexual exploitation and forced child labor. Trafficking
victims from all over Cuba are exploited in major cities. This
government does not give its own people the necessary help.
Cuban forced-labor victims, and this is from the State Department
reports, include children coerced into working conditions of
involuntary servitude in commercial agriculture.
The Government of Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making
significant efforts to do so. In 2001, Cuban officials outlined an
extensive plan to address the prevention and prosecution of trafficking
victims on a national scale, but there is no evidence to show that the
plan has been implemented. Cuba has no strategy to address its
trafficking problem and growing child sex tourism industry.
Let the Cuban Government deal with eliminating the trafficking of
children first. Cuba is in of the State Department's Trafficking in
persons report tier 3, which is among the worst in the world. Let them
deal with this issue and then perhaps we can see about some of these
issues. But I urge strongly a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona (Mr. Flake) will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Paul:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the United Nations to develop or publicize any
proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States
person in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or
any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. None of the
funds made available in this Act may be used by the United
Nations to implement or impose

[[Page H4519]]

any such taxation or fee on any United States person.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple, clear
amendment. It prohibits the use of any funds in this bill to be used by
the United Nations to promote a world global tax.
Over the last 10 years, there were at least five meetings in the
United Nations that talked and met for the sole purpose of devising a
global tax. Not too long ago the G8 met, and France and Germany
proposed a global tax on airline tickets. There have been other
proposals on taxes on financial services. Hans Eichel, Germany's
finance minister, stated, ``No one in the G8 has said anything against
it. It is now on the agenda.''
So it is not like I have dreamed up this possibility. This is very
real. It is on the agenda. They have talked about it for years.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that support for my amendment would
be that somebody has responded. They think that nobody has, but I think
the American people through us are quite willing to respond and say we
are not ready, we do not think that it is a good idea that the United
Nations be funded through a global tax.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is an
excellent amendment, and I accept it and I am glad he offered it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States
of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing
State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those
States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would prohibit funds for the Department of Justice
from being used to prevent patients in States that have medical
marijuana laws from following those laws.
Over the past 9 years, 10 States have adopted laws which allow the
use of marijuana for medicinal purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. They
legalized the use of marijuana to relieve the intense pain that
accompanies debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer, multiple
sclerosis, and glaucoma. With the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont, all
of those laws were adopted by referendum, passed by the people.
Thousands of patients have testified, explained, and acknowledged
that marijuana helps relieve symptoms, such as nausea, pain, and loss
of appetite associated with serious illnesses. These people have found
that marijuana is the only remedy that improves their quality of life.
Yet the DEA has been targeting these people for arrest and sending them
to jail. This needs to stop.
It is unconscionable that we in Congress could possibly presume to
tell a patient that he or she cannot use the only medication that has
proven to combat the pain and symptoms associated with a devastating
illness. How can we tell very sick people that they cannot have the
drug that could save their lives simply because of a narrow ideology
and bias against that drug in this Congress?
A 1999 Institute of Medicine report for the National Academy of
Sciences described the legitimate use of medical marijuana. It stated:
``Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system
becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative
for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by
smoking marijuana. Today there is no such alternative available.''
This amendment would affect only the States that allow the use of
medical marijuana by preventing the Justice Department from arresting,
prosecuting, suing, or otherwise discouraging doctors and patients in
those States from following the laws of those States to relieve their
physical injuries and conditions.
In the Supreme Court's majority opinion last week, Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote that the issue can be addressed ``through the democratic
process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents
may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.'' With this amendment,
we intend to use the powers granted us in the Constitution and
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court last week to do just that.
Opponents of this amendment have tried to misrepresent it. This
amendment does not encourage the recreational use of marijuana. It does
not encourage drug use in children. It does not legalize marijuana. It
would give relief to people suffering from horrific diseases and allow
their doctors to decide which drugs will work best to do so.
Organizations including the Nation's largest medical organization, the
2.7 million member American Nurses Association, the American Public
Health Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the
New York State Medical Society, among others, have publicly endorsed
the medical use of marijuana.

{time} 1300

Our amendment is about compassion, in allowing patients the simple
right of using the most effective medicine possible. Taxpayers' dollars
should not be spent on sending seriously or terminally ill patients to
jail. A vote for this amendment is a vote for States rights and for
compassion. Ten States have decided to use medical marijuana in their
laws. The Federal Government should not stand in their way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
amendment. Marijuana is not a harmless drug. The National Institute on
Drug Abuse, the American Medical Association and other science-based
research institutes have documented the substantial risks of using
marijuana. The FDA, on the other hand, has already approved Marinol,
which contains THC, a derivative of the active chemical in marijuana,
totally undermining claims that there is any need for medical
marijuana.
If passed, this amendment would open the door for drug dealers to use
medical marijuana exemptions as cover for their growing and selling
operations. Up until recently, no adequate testing had been done in
this country on the devastating effects of marijuana use. If only the
young people of America knew of the study that just has been released
recently that marijuana use curtails the development of the brain. We
have very young people in this country using marijuana, and marijuana
curtails the growth of our brain, and our brain is not mature until we
are 25 years of age. Anything we do that encourages young people to use
marijuana will have a devastating impact on their mental capacity.
I speak with a little experience on this. I have some friends who
grew up when marijuana was the hot issue, and some of the brightest
young people I knew became somewhat dull and have remained that way all
of their life because the recent study proves that

[[Page H4520]]

marijuana use curtails the growth and development of the brain.
I have never had a physician tell me that it was needed in his
portfolio to treat medical diseases and pain. I have never had a
physician, and I have been in the health care field, in the legislative
process, for 20 some years.
Medical marijuana is not something that is needed in this country. It
is a drug that stops the development of the brains in our youth, and it
should not become legal in any way, in my view.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will not contest the
gentleman from Pennsylvania on the intellectual level of some of his
companions, but on other issues, I very much disagree with what he has
had to say.
As to its relevance, yes, marijuana is and can be a drug with serious
adverse consequences. So is OxyContin. So are many other substances
that can only be legally administered by a physician with a
prescription.
This is not a bill to make marijuana generally available. It is not a
bill to put it in baby formula. It says, what is the rationale for
singling out marijuana and saying that no doctor in no State can
prescribe that even if that doctor feels that is the only way or the
most effective way to alleviate pain? And I say most effective.
I would have hoped we would have learned something about trying to
practice medicine here. They released today the autopsy, sadly, in that
tragic case of Terri Schiavo. Apparently, according to the autopsy, not
only was she in a persistent vegetative state, she was blind. The fact
is that we had people on the floor of this House a few months ago
directly controverting what we now know to be the medical facts.
Let us not do that again. Let us not say that we will decide on a
political basis at the national level that no State is competent to
regulate the practice of medicine in that State if they decide to allow
a doctor to prescribe marijuana, because that is what we are talking
about. The regulation of medicine has been a State function. Some
States have decided to allow their doctors to prescribe marijuana. This
has got a double safeguard. The State has to decide to do it, and then
a physician has to decide to do it.
If there are physicians that you think are misusing this, and there
are with substances. Rush Limbaugh got into trouble with OxyContin.
That does not mean because something can be legally prescribed that you
look away when it has been illegally used.
So let us treat marijuana the way we treat many, many other
substances with far more impact on individuals. Let us leave this to
the States and leave it to the doctors, and let us stop this practice,
which I have commented on before, where most of us are not doctors, but
try to play them on C-SPAN.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Judiciary Committee where we look at
these types of issues. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from
Virginia on this cause.
As I listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts make the allegation
that no doctor in no State shall prescribe medicinal marijuana, I
acknowledge the statement, and the implication at least was that this
is new legal ground that we are plowing here. But, in fact, the FDA
says no doctor in no State shall prescribe a pharmaceutical or medicine
that is not approved by the FDA. That is why we had this major debate
in this Congress here a year or so ago with regard to the reimportation
of drugs.
So it is not new ground. It is old ground. It is old ground, and we
know the cause, and we know what the driving force is behind this. It
is seeking to get the camel's nose under the tent, seeking to establish
a very small sliver of marijuana so that eventually the people that are
behind this, that want to legalize marijuana in their individual States
and across this country, can drive that wedge in and eventually be able
to legalize this substance that has not been supported by any branch of
medicine that I can identify. The American Medical Association, the
National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Glaucoma Society, Academy of
Ophthalmology, Cancer Society all have rejected marijuana for medical
purposes.
What we have here is an initiative that is designed to advance a
social agenda, the social agenda of the people that want to legalize
marijuana. And, in fact, if we do that, we are going to see it planted
in more places around this country, not less, and more accessible to
more people, and this society will be more replete with the abuse of
this hallucinogenic drug, a gateway drug that reduces the productivity
of the American people and causes more people to get on to serious
drugs, such as methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, et cetera.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership, he and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for bringing this
important bipartisan initiative to the floor. What we are discussing
today is compassion, and that is a bipartisan value. I am grateful for
their leadership on this issue that is critical to many in my district
and across the country who are suffering from debilitating illnesses
and to those who care for them.
Before I proceed with my comments, though, I want to acknowledge the
tremendous leadership of the Chair of this subcommittee of
appropriations, the subcommittee that has such a long name now, but we
all know it is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He knows, and
every chance I get, I want to tell others, of the high regard that I
have for him. It is a privilege to call him colleague and to serve with
him in the Congress of the United States. Again, every chance I get, I
want to acknowledge his tremendous leadership, especially for
respecting the human rights of every person on the face of the Earth.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) as well for their leadership on this important subcommittee.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is especially timely coming on the
heels of the Supreme Court decision last week. The Court's decision
makes clear that Federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed.
For that reason, I strongly support the proposed legislation of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that would change Federal laws
to permit medical marijuana pursuant to State law. Make sure you know
that what we are talking about here is in regard to States passing
their own laws or initiatives and what would happen in this initiative,
which is needed because we do not have a Federal law to respect States'
rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana.
This amendment is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice
Department from spending any funds to undermine State medical marijuana
laws. It would leave to the discretion of the States how they would
alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a States rights issue. I
have been a longstanding advocate for allowing States to make medical
marijuana available to patients under a doctor's recommendation to
alleviate painful suffering. A doctor's prescription is needed for a
substance that is not otherwise legal. Doctors write prescriptions
every day for that purpose, and they should be able to do so if their
States allow it in the case of medical marijuana.
In my district in San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people
to AIDS over the last two decades. Twenty thousand people. I have seen
firsthand at the bedsides of these patients the suffering that
accompanies this dreadful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of
the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting
syndrome and nausea. It is not confined to AIDS, but also cancer and so
many examples that our colleagues will point out. This is just the
compassionate way to go.
The previous speaker says he knows of no scientific or medical
institution that has said anything positive about this. I beg to
differ. The fact is this has

[[Page H4521]]

been supported by science. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a
report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana would be
advantageous in the treatment of some diseases and is potentially
effective in treating pain. Medical journals and other recent articles
attest to the fact that active components in medical marijuana inhibit
pain. Other proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the
quality of life, as I mentioned before, for patients with cancer,
multiple sclerosis and other severe medical conditions. That is why
many medical associations support legal access to medical marijuana,
again, if the State allows it with a doctor's prescription, including
the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health
Association and the AIDS Action Council.
In addition, more than 10 States, including my own State of
California, have adopted these laws since 1996. Most of these laws were
approved by a vote of the people. Numerous polls indicate that three-
quarters of the American people support the right of patients to use
marijuana with a doctor's prescription. A recent AARP poll showed that
92 percent of America's seniors support the use of medicinal marijuana
with a doctor's prescription in the States where it is allowed.
Religious denominations also support legal access to medical
marijuana, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive
Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform
Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist
Association, and the United Methodist Church.
We must not make criminals of criminally ill people. Excuse me. We
must not make criminals of seriously ill people. My slip of the tongue
may tell the tale. It is not a crime to be ill. If we need to have
access to pain relief, the people who seek this therapy should be able
to receive it. It is long past time to base our policies on science and
not on misguided politics. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment affects
the health and well-being of so many Americans, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for it.
I also want to commend again the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for their
courage in bringing this important bipartisan, compassionate
legislation to the floor.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been a leader on this issue.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this promarijuana amendment. It
has little, little to do with compassion. It is hiding behind a few
sick people to try to, in effect, legalize, back door, marijuana in
this country.
This amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from
enforcing Federal drug laws against anyone hiding behind a State
medical marijuana statute. If passed, this amendment would put people
in danger of shysters and quacks willing to recommend a dangerous drug,
marijuana, in place of federally approved safe and proven medicines.
You can get Marinol. We have got other ways by taking a pill to treat
this. There are multiple chemicals in marijuana. It is not medicine.
Marijuana is just as much medicine as the carbolic smoke ball from the
late 19th century was medicine.

{time} 1315

The carbolic smoke ball promised in this ad we can see promised to
cure everything from asthma to sore eyes to diphtheria. Consumers were
told to smoke the carbolic smoke ball three times a day for what ailed
them. Similarly, snake-oil salesmen promised through their quackery
that their product could cure all aches and pains.
This is why we passed the Food and Drug Act. That is why we have an
FDA, to protect consumers from the nostrums of the day. Congress acted
responsibly in protecting this country from fraudulent claims of
nostrum sellers and from using unsafe drugs from being taken by sick or
afflicted consumers. Do the Members think these people were not sick
and these people did not want to be cured? But they were sold products
that, in fact, could not deliver. They made them drunk just like
marijuana makes one high. What they do is isolate the chemicals inside
to treat the disease.
One does not smoke pot. I have told this body several times before
about Irma Perez, but many seem to have a short memory about this. The
rhetoric about marijuana as a ``treatment'' for medical purposes, which
probably was dreamed up at some college dorm, was a factor in the death
of Irma Perez. She was 14 years old. She heard all this talk about
medical marijuana even on the floors of Congress, and she was suffering
from an Ecstasy overdose. And her friends gave her marijuana, thinking
it was medical instead of getting her a doctor. A medical examiner said
that had she received real medical attention rather than so-called
medical marijuana, Irma Perez would still be alive.
There is a reason that marijuana is illegal, a Schedule I controlled
substance. It has not met the rigorous approval process of the FDA. In
fact, nearly 60 percent of people in drug treatment in America are in
treatment for marijuana. Marijuana has never been proven safe and
effective for any disease. To the contrary, it has been linked to a
greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy notes evidence that
marijuana can increase the risk of serious mental health problems, and
in teens marijuana can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide, and
schizophrenia.
There is a cost to Members of Congress standing up here and
pretending that this is medical. This is not safe medicine. It is not
safe and effective. It is dangerous. It contains more than 400
chemicals. Moreover, we know from survey data that so-called medical
marijuana is not used for medicinal purposes except in very few cases,
but for recreational and emotional reasons. One single doctor in Oregon
wrote more than 4,000 prescriptions for people to use marijuana. His
medical license was finally suspended last year for his failure to
provide proper examinations or oversight of this so-called
``treatment.''
We have marijuana coffee houses proliferating in these States that
are supposedly for cancer patients. There are people growing tens of
hundreds of acres and putting medical marijuana in front of it and
hiding and saying ``we are helping cancer patients,'' which is not
true.
Finally, pro-marijuana advocates exploit the stories of people who
are suffering from real pain or illness as a wedge for their pro-drug
agenda, claiming that marijuana is necessary to alleviate their pain.
It is simply not proven, not true, and becoming less true every single
year for even the exceptional case.
The good news is that Marinol, a synthetic version of marijuana's
derivative THC, has been approved by FDA as medication for appropriate
treatment by prescription. Marinol has met the rigorous standard for
``safe and effective'' that is required for all drugs. It will be great
for cancer patients and is working now in all of them. Originally,
Members got on this floor and said it could not stop vomiting. It does.
The bad news is that proponents of medical marijuana are perpetrating
a fraud on the public by claiming that home-grown weed, pot, reefer,
marijuana, or whatever one wants to call it, should be used as
medicine. Medical marijuana is a ruse. Marijuana is a dangerous and
illicit drug, period.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. I rise in support of the separation of powers as established
by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly
delegates the power to deal with criminal matters, like the use of
drugs, to the States.
I agree with my colleagues, even the one who just preceded me, that
marijuana is probably a dangerous drug, and I would not suggest that we
do

[[Page H4522]]

anything to encourage its use. Certainly the war on drugs has not
eliminated that choice for our young people one iota. Our approach at
supply rather than looking at demand has not been successful. But, most
importantly, this drug, which may be harmful, reflects many other drugs
that may well be harmful, but that we have decided as a society should
be permitted to be prescribed by doctors whom we have empowered to make
such prescriptions to people who are suffering from illnesses. There
are many drugs that have many serious side effects and that are harmful
to people. Marijuana is no different than that. And especially we
should try to discourage young people from using marijuana.
But simply to override all of the powers of the people of the States
of this Union to determine that decision and to override criminal
matters that have been decided by the people of States is
unconstitutional. The fact is our Founding Fathers wanted these issues
to be determined in the States. All this decision we are making today
is, should we use Federal money and use Federal resources to override
the wishes of the people of the States who have voted, and in my State
there was a referendum which won handily, on this issue. And the issue
is that they have a right to decide at the State level should a doctor
be able to prescribe marijuana to someone who is suffering, a cancer
victim, an AIDS victim, or whatever. This makes all the sense in the
world.
Let us not have a power grab by the Federal Government at the expense
of these poor patients and the right of doctors to make these decisions
and not politicians.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Not only does the amendment
hurt law enforcement's efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it
really sends the wrong message to our children. Marijuana is the most
abused drug in the United States. According to the ONDCP and the DEA,
more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than
for alcohol or all other illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just read that one more time: according to
the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for
marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs.
This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse, and I
know and I want to stipulate that it is not the intention of the
authors, but it possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young
people that there are going to be health benefits for smoking
marijuana. I think it is confusing to young people for the Congress to
do that. I understand what the authors of the amendment are trying to
do, but it would be confusing and I think the wrong message.
Last year, this amendment failed by a vote of 148 to 268, and I urge
rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), a sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I stand as a Member from California, which has had a law for almost
10 years now allowing the medical prescription use of marijuana for
alleviating pain. It has not been a problem in California. It does not
legalize drugs. It does not get drugs into the hands of kids. That law
is enforced. Drug laws in California are strictly enforced by local law
enforcement. But local law enforcement also supports in my community
this use of pain relief.
I mean, this issue is about doctors and patients, doctors who
prescribe for pain. They can have all kinds of alternatives prescribed.
In some cases, this is the way that pain is best relieved. So what we
are asking is that no money be spent to enforce the laws in those
States that have been working. The Supreme Court did not strike down
those laws. They did not say they were illegal. This is the ability of
whether Congress is going to now step in and require those 10 States
that have practices in place that are alleviating pain that they can no
longer do that.
Do not allow the Federal Government to bust old ladies who are
suffering from pain and have a prescription for relief.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment and am proud
to be a cosponsor of that amendment.
Oppenents of this amendment would want you to believe that this
amendment is all about legalizing pot, or about unfettered access to
street drugs, or about creating a generation of drug addicts.
They know it's not and their exaggeration won't change the facts.
The facts are--
This amendment is about States rights and the ultimate right of the
citizens to empower their government through the democratic process.
This amendment is about health care, under a doctor's prescription
and direction.
This amendment is about compassion and caring for persons who suffer
from chronic pain and/or terminal illnesses.
This amendment is not about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.
This amendment is not about unfettered marijuana growth, distribution
or usage. It is about regulated, controlled access.
My friends across the aisle seem to forget that this body, this House
of Representatives gets its power from the people. In the United States
the people empower their government, not the reverse.
In this country the people have the right to tell government how to
govern.
In this country the people have the right to petition their
government for change.
And when that happens, this government, this House of
Representatives, has an obligation to respond.
When Americans called for an end to discrimination, we had an
obligation to pass the Civil Rights Act.
When Americans called for fairness to persons with disabilities, we
had an obligation to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ten states and millions of American citizens have voted to make it
the law in their states that marijuana is available through
prescriptions for health care purposes.
They are asking us--their representatives in Congress--to change the
law to make it so. We have an obligation to respond.
The Hinchey amendment is the responsible thing to do. It is the right
thing to do.
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gallegly).
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Marijuana is not a therapeutic drug. It is a harmful drug. Proponents
of medical marijuana claim that drugs help alleviate pain, nausea,
vomiting, and loss of appetite for the terminally ill. But these
alleged benefits are rejected by medical authorities. The American
Medical Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American
Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the
American Cancer Society, however, have all rejected the use of
marijuana for medical purposes.
Further, smoking pot is physically harmful. Smoking pot delivers
three to five times the amount of tar and carbon monoxide as
cigarettes. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, studies
show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as
much cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of
cigarettes every day. Smoking pot is not helpful; it is harmful.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, like my constituents, I believe that
doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients
suffering debilitating diseases like cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, spastic
disorders, and many more. We want the Federal Government to get out of
our way because our State of California passed Proposition 215 in 1996,
allowing for the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
The Members should know that my mother suffered from glaucoma and
marijuana relieved her tremendously. In fact, her favorite Christmas
present was a tin of marijuana. She is gone now, but I am certain that
I speak for her today in asking that those who suffer from these
debilitating diseases get help and can use marijuana if that help
works. We want the Justice Department to stop punishing those who are

[[Page H4523]]

abiding by their State laws. Join me in supporting this important
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the debate on this
issue is so limited. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) was
unable to present the evidence that the teen use of marijuana, since
the approval by the State of California, has gone down. And I would put
this in the Record.
This is an opportunity for us to clarify that the 10 States,
including my State of Oregon, which was approved by the voters, have
the right to make sure that the 10,000 people who are using medical
marijuana under the supervision of 1,700 doctors have that right. It is
outrageous that the Federal Government would intervene over the rights
of States like mine, like Arizona, like California where people are
taking these steps. It is a sorry continuation of attempts by this
Congress to try to criminalize Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the
only State in the Union with end-of-life protection, and the sorry
spectacle we had here on the floor where Congress was intervening with
the Terry Schiavo family.
I strongly urge the approval of this amendment.

{time} 1330

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment extends the protections
already provided at the State level in 10 States to the Federal level.
It ensures that critically ill patients can find relief from nausea and
pain without worrying that the Federal Government will prosecute them.
The Federal Government should use its power to help terminally ill
citizens, not arrest them.
Compassion ought to require us that we look at what we are doing here
in this debate, trying to raise marijuana to the level of some kind of
bogeyman when you have people who are suffering from terminal illness,
and we are saying they should not be provided relief from pain.
What are we talking about in this Congress? Where is our compassion?
Where is our understanding of what families go through when someone is
suffering from a terminal illness, when people are looking for relief
from pain? We are going to deny that to them because of some shibboleth
about marijuana?
Let us get real. Let us support the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, are we for States rights or not? I often
hear from that side of the aisle we are for States rights. I guess we
are for States rights until we disagree with policies adopted by a
State.
My State and nine other States have by large margins adopted the
right of people in a regulated way through physician prescription to
receive medical marijuana for certain conditions for which there are
few other effective or no other effective treatments. Plain and simple.
It is not about legalization. You say, well, do not cripple law
enforcement. Do we want to divert our limited law enforcement
resources, who cannot give me a permanent DEA agent to help with the
meth epidemic in the rural areas of any district, into chasing around
old, sick people growing marijuana? I do not think so. That is not
helping law enforcement with their mission.
Let us focus them on things that are a real threat to the American
people, not on issues that have been decided by the people of the
various States that this is something that should be made available in
a compassionate way to help a few people.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I oppose legalizing
marijuana, but I support this amendment. Just like the other voters in
California, I do not see why we should prohibit doctors from providing
for pain relief for their patients.
I will talk to you about someone I knew. I will call him Mr. X. He
had terminal cancer, and he could not eat, and the only thing that
could get him an appetite was marijuana. Mr. X, who was my age, had to
go out and buy marijuana illegally. It was so horrible for him.
Why should we force the indignity on terminal cancer patients of
having to do that? That is why my State voted to allow doctors to
prescribe marijuana, so that cancer patients who cannot eat have the
chance to get some nutrition. For the life of me, I cannot understand
why we would interfere with that, and I strongly, strongly urge, on
behalf of all cancer patients, please support this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
amendment. I ask respect for those who oppose this amendment, but I ask
respect, kindness and love for those suffering with cancer. There is
not a family in America that is not touched by this devastating
disease.
Allow the Hinchey amendment to go forward, so there can be healing
and comfort for those dying of an enormously devastating disease. That
is all we ask for, and, of course, the protection of the 10th
amendment, that allows States to govern the laws of their particular
jurisdiction, to protect the people of their State. Support the Hinchey
amendment.
I rise today in support of the Hinchey Medical Marijuana amendment.
According to the Mayo Clinic, marijuana has been used as a medical
treatment for thousands of years. Further, the use of marijuana for
medical purposes has been proven to be beneficial in the treatment of
glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain.
Despite various studies and reports by medical experts, the U.S.
Supreme Court, on Monday of last week, handed down its rule which would
allow sick patients who rely on marijuana to relieve pain or to help
with their medical conditions to be prosecuted under Federal law even
if their home State allows use of the drug for such medical purposes.
The 6-3 decision came as a setback to the medical marijuana movement,
but it does not change the laws of the 10 States that allow patients to
use the drug to ease symptoms. Needless to say, I am very disappointed
with the Court's decision.
To this end, I strongly support the Hinchey amendment. This amendment
would prohibit the Justice Department from preventing States that have
passed medical marijuana laws from implementing them. Currently ten
States have adopted laws that allow the use of marijuana for medical
purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. These laws were passed to allow the
use of marijuana to relieve the intense pain and other symptoms that
accompany several debilitating diseases, including aids, cancer,
multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. The DEA has conducted numerous raids
on the homes of medical marijuana users, prosecuting patients who were
using marijuana, in accordance with State laws, to relieve this pain.
Before closing, it is important to note that the Hinchey amendment
will not change marijuana's classification as a Schedule I narcotic,
require States to adopt medical marijuana laws, stop law enforcement
officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana, encourage drug
use in children, and legalize marijuana or other drugs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say in closing that the opposition to this
amendment today on the floor has presented 19th century arguments for a
21st century problem.
We have people in this country who are suffering the debilitating
pain that comes from cancer and chemotherapy. No relief is available to
them except by association with cannabinoids. That association should
be allowed under a doctor's prescription. That condition exists now in
10 States across this country. This Congress says to those 10 States, I
am sorry, but you cannot do it. We are intervening.
That should stop. This Congress should not be about inducing pain,
encouraging pain. This Congress should be about relieving pain in the
American people. This Congress should be about enlightened medication
and an enlightened health care delivery system, not one based upon 19th
century prejudices, biases and a narrow ideology.
Let us pass this amendment. Let us be sensible, creative, decent and
caring

[[Page H4524]]

for the American people. Let us pass this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to what the gentleman said about
this ``narrow ideology.'' My mom died of cancer, my father died of
cancer, there have been many people in my family on my mother's side
who died of cancer. I, at one time, supported this and changed my vote
in the Congress because I have seen the devastation that drugs can have
on young people, the devastation that it is doing to many people.
So people can have differences of opinion. But when the gentleman
uses these inflammatory rhetoric of ``narrow ideology,'' it is like all
truth is on their side, I think that is really the wrong tone. This is
a serious issue. There are good and decent people on both sides. But I
think the gentleman's tone and comments were really not exactly
accurate.
I care as much about this issue, and I care as much about suffering
and pain as the gentleman. I stood with my mom when she died and with
my father when he died.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, let me state that my mother and father-in-
law both recently died of cancer as well.
Compassion is not limited to either side, but there is science and
there is not science. In fact, the Carbolic Smoke Balls and the snake
oil is very similar; getting high is the same as getting splashed.
There are, in fact, medical solutions to what has been talked about
today. Serostim deals with wasting in AIDS, as does Megestrol, and they
have been found by FDA to treat the very things they claim that you
want treated today. You do not get high in the process, but your pain
is relieved. Marinol treats the vomiting questions and other questions.
It isolates the substances in it. There are 200 chemicals in marijuana.
One gets you high, but other parts actually can be isolated just like
in other things.
Furthermore, we have heard kind of a silly argument here on the House
floor today that physicians should be making up FDA law. Physicians do
not do trials of different drugs when they come to market. Physicians
do not have big testing agencies. That is why we have a Food and Drug
Administration. This is in effect asking to repeal the Food and Drug
Administration.
Then we have kind of a very interesting legal argument going on here,
not whether States have rights, but when the Federal Government has
ruled, can States nullify a Federal law? The Supreme Court has always
ruled unanimously that they do not, ever since the Civil War. We fought
a war over nullification.
We do not believe in States rights on civil rights questions and
others. When the Federal Government rules, the Court is unanimous. The
split decision the other week was best explained by Justice Scalia for
the majority, who said that you cannot have intrastate and interstate
definitions when you are dealing with marijuana.
These huge marijuana plantations that are growing in the State of
California, which, by the way, there is no limitation on doctors to
cancer patients. We had one testify in our committee who gave so-called
medical marijuana to teenagers for ADD, that doctors prescribe it for
fingernail pain.
There is not this restriction on cancer. It is a bogus debate.
California does not have that restriction. These huge marijuana
plantations, nobody is going after individual doctors except in a test
case where somebody wants to do it. We are going after the people
prescribing to thousands of people, to the coffee shops that are
proliferating in these States where the people were sold a bill of
goods that they were working with cancer patients, and instead now they
see the proliferation of coffee houses, they see the proliferation of
marijuana plantations, with signs up in front of them saying, ``This is
all for medical purposes.''
We in Congress have a responsibility to lead in this country, not to
buy into college dormitory-type thoughts of ``wouldn't it be great if
we called marijuana medical, and then we could smoke pot?''
That is why the vote has actually declined the last few years here in
Congress, and after the Supreme Court ruling last week, I believe it
will decline even further, because there is not an intrastate. Not only
was it previously upheld on interstate, it has now been upheld on
intrastate, with Scalia being one of the great conservatives who
historically has stood up for States rights explaining the difference
very clearly.
I hope Members will join with the chairman in voting down this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act for
a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program, and for
other State, local, and Federal forensic activities, may be
used for a grant to a State that does not have in effect
policies and procedures to ensure that the State collects DNA
from every felon convicted in the courts of the State.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a former Federal prosecutor, I understand how the
use of DNA profiles has become a powerful tool in solving crimes.
States have taken the lead by expanding the use of DNA in crime-solving
efforts.
The distinguished chairman's home in Virginia was the first to pass a
DNA data bank law in 1989, requiring all convicted sex offenders to
provide a DNA sample. Since then, Virginia has continued to be a leader
in this area, expanding their law in 1990 to include all convicted
felons, and further expanding it since. As a result of these laws,
Virginia has obtained a staggering 2,747 hits by searching their
database, solving countless crimes.
Because of the amazing crime-solving successes in Virginia, I
introduced legislation in 2002 seeking to mandate an expansion of State
collection regimes and an expansion of the Federal database by
permitting States like Virginia to upload the increasing number and
types of profiles they were obtaining.
At the time only 23 States had enacted legislation requiring DNA from
convicted felons. Twenty-seven States, including my own State of
California, were 12 years behind what Virginia had accomplished. Since
then, I am pleased to report that 42 States have passed laws to require
DNA from all convicted felons. It is now time for those last remaining
eight States to come on board.
The U.S. Congress is putting a significant amount of money into DNA
programs, over $177 million this year alone, with the goal of not just
reducing backlogs, but also solving and preventing crimes. The eight
States that do not currently collect from all convicted felons are not
obtaining the hits that they should and are therefore making the entire
system inefficient since cross-State matches are not being made.
These States must modernize their collection. Since these violent
offenders know no State boundaries, the failure to upload these samples
puts all citizens at risk, and the Federal Government has a compelling
interest in making it so.
Statistics show that as many as half of the criminals that commit
violent

[[Page H4525]]

crimes have nonviolent criminal histories. Therefore, offenders who are
required to submit DNA when convicted of nonviolent felonies will be
identified as they leave DNA behind later at rape and murder scenes.
States originally thought there would be no law enforcement value to
collecting samples from convicted felons when the crime was not sexual
in nature or not particularly violent. They were wrong. Virginia's
offender hits, primarily from previous nonviolent and nonsexual
convictions, have aided over 2,700 investigations, including 15 rapes,
255 murders and 521 sex crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I will cite only one of the countless examples we have
seen of the tragic consequences of inadequate DNA collection schemes.
Some years ago, four Springfield, Massachusetts, women fell victim to a
serial rapist and murderer.

{time} 1345

The man who later turned out to be the rapist and murderer had prior
nonviolent felony convictions for breaking and entering and for
larceny. He was sentenced to community supervision. If Massachusetts at
the time had required him to give a DNA sample after either of his 1996
convictions, a DNA match could have been obtained after the first rape
and murder, thereby preventing the subsequent three tragedies.
Massachusetts has since modernized their law to obtain samples from all
convicted felons.
Mr. Chairman, the results speak for themselves. DNA databanks are
most effective with the inclusion of at least all convicted felons and
applied to all forms of cases. While I will withdraw this amendment, as
I know the chairman has a point of order, I intend to introduce
legislation to make these important changes and would very much like to
work with the chairman on it.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a second amendment which I will not speak on
now because the chairman was kind enough to let me speak on it earlier,
but I would like to take the opportunity immediately after
consideration of this amendment to make the formal offer of that
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF. 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. Schiff:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8__. It is the sense of Congress that all necessary
steps should be taken to provide adequate security for the
judiciary and to protect and uphold the independence of the
judicial branch.

Point of Order

Amendment No. 29 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. 29 offered by Mr. Otter:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO DELAY 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 the intimidation of a potential
witness, 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 21 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:
``(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. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) reserves a point
of order.
The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to speak on
this amendment that I believe renews an important balance between
protecting our Nation and confirming the freedom on which our Nation
was founded.
While I realize the language is subject to a point of order, I
believe it is imperative that we have this debate today. This issue
drives to the core of who we hope to be as Americans, and it is
important to address it on the floor of this House.
The fourth amendment, which protects us from unreasonable search and
seizures by the government, is fundamental to the Bill of Rights
because it protects our rights to be individual and to be private. Its
creators, under direction, I believe, of their Creator, endorsed the
principle that it is the government's role to protect that right and
not to encroach upon it. The idea of individuality, that each person is
created uniquely and with certain inborn rights that government cannot
take away, is the most basic expression of who we are as a Nation and a
people.
That is why I am so concerned about the way we have expanded the
government's power to delay notification of search and seizure of our
privacy. The issue at hand is not when or where or

[[Page H4526]]

how often these warrants are used, but that the government holds these
broad and sweeping powers at all.
It is important to know that we are safe and secure within the
borders of this country. But Americans can only be secure with their
liberties, and Americans are only safe, if they are free.
I understand that ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used before the
passage of the PATRIOT Act, and I recognize that the courts have upheld
their use in limited and extraordinary circumstances, but this does not
justify the serious steps taken by the USA PATRIOT Act to erode away
the protections offered by the fourth amendment. By broadening the use
of ``sneak and peek'' warrants and making them the standard rather than
the exception, the PATRIOT Act threatens our liberties that are given
us by our Creator and protected under our Constitution.
That is why I am offering this amendment today. My amendment narrows
the scope of ``sneak and peek'' and brings back the judicial oversight
that was built into our Constitution and is the balance of power in our
government. It more carefully defines the very specific circumstances
in which a ``sneak and peek'' warrant can be used.
It also employs the notification procedure upheld by most courts
before the USA PATRIOT Act. If we are going to codify this already
questionable tactic, should we not at least limit it to the practice
established by the courts before the USA PATRIOT Act?
This debate is even more critical this year, as we will soon be
deliberating reauthorization of parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. While
this amendment may not be in order today, I implore my colleagues to
give this issue the consideration it deserves when the reauthorization
bill does come to the floor.
As Americans, it is our fundamental belief that each of us is
ultimately responsible for safeguarding our freedom and our safety. It
is our obligation, nay, our duty, Mr. Chairman, as citizens of this
great Nation, to see that no one, not even our own government, is
allowed to take these freedoms and responsibilities away.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we still reserve a point of order.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to
the floor, and I want to express my disappointment if it is ruled out
of order because this is such an important issue.
The fourth amendment is worth fighting for. The Founders of the
country thought it was literally worth fighting for, and yet I see us
here in the Congress willing to sacrifice it too easily.
One of the arguments is that success has been proven that these easy-
to-obtain search warrants have produced success in catching certain
criminals, but that does not prove that we could not have done it
legitimately by following the fourth amendment; so we do not know
whether they would not have been caught or not. Another thing is; does
sacrificing security and liberty ever justify more catching of so-
called criminals? What if we had a total police state? What if we
turned our whole country into a concentration camp? We could make sure
there would be no crimes whatsoever.
The trade-off is too great. We should never trade off safety and
security for our liberties, and I think that is what we have done with
the PATRIOT Act.
I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our
attention; and, hopefully, we will eventually protect the fourth
amendment.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time left.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I would like to close by saying that those people that the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul) talked about are the same people that believe
that sidewalks cause rain. They believe that this PATRIOT Act has truly
cut down on crime.
Americans have a right to security not only in their persons and
their property, but their civil liberties as well. Though I must
withdraw my amendment, I am hopeful that we can work together during
the upcoming days and weeks in reauthorization debate to offer security
to the American people without changing the essence of what it means to
be an American.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Idaho?
There was no objection.

Sequential Votes in the 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 offered by Mr. Weiner of New York; amendment offered by Mr.
Inslee of Washington; amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona;
amendment offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona; and an amendment offered by
Mr. Hinchey of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 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 31,
noes 396, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 251]

AYES--31

Ackerman
Barrow
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Carson
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Green, Gene
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Holden
Israel
Kelly
Kucinich
Lowey
McIntyre
Menendez
Murphy
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Porter
Ramstad
Renzi
Rothman
Strickland
Towns
Velazquez
Weiner

NOES--396

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe

[[Page H4527]]

Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Cuellar
Hyde
Melancon
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Sessions

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1417

Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, GUTIERREZ, ENGEL, MICHAUD,
BERRY, BUTTERFIELD, ROGERS of Alabama, JACKSON of Illinois, Ms.
SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Mrs. BONO, Mr. McGOVERN, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr.
LoBIONDO and Mr. FORD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman on rollcall No. 251, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 251, Had I been on the
floor, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
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 177,
noes 248, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 252]

AYES--177

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Mack
Maloney
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--248

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--8

Bachus
Cardoza
Cuellar
Hyde
Jones (OH)
Oberstar
Sessions
Shimkus

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1426

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

[[Page H4528]]

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

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
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

[Roll No. 253]

AYES--124

Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--304

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--5

Cox
Cuellar
Hyde
Oberstar
Sessions

{time} 1434

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 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

[Roll No. 254]

AYES--210

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Butterfield
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

[[Page H4529]]

NOES--216

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Engel
English (PA)
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Brady (TX)
Cuellar
Garrett (NJ)
Hyde
Oberstar
Sessions
Tiberi

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.

{time} 1442

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 255]

AYES--161

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
Costa
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--264

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Conyers
Cox
Cuellar
Feeney
Garrett (NJ)
Hyde
Oberstar
Sessions

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1451

Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BACA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4530]]

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of
the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger)
on an important issue regarding democracy in Venezuela.
Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, several Members of Congress went to
Venezuela and heard about the intimidation by the Venezuelan Government
of a democracy advocate named Maria Corina Machado. Ms. Machado is the
leader of Sumate, a Venezuelan nongovernmental electoral watchdog.
Currently, she is charged by the Venezuelan Government for accepting
illicit foreign financial contributions from our own National Endowment
For Democracy.
Recently, Ms. Machado was invited to the White House to see the
President and share her concerns about the endangered state of
democracy in Venezuela. This Congress should stand behind Ms. Machado
and support the growth of democracy in Venezuela.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's
interpretation of the difficult situation in Venezuela. Sumate has been
one Venezuelan institution that has been willing and able to monitor
the anti-democratic behavior of the Venezuelan Government. It has been
able to bring the attention of the world to the decline in democracy in
that country.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress should be supporting democratic
institutions in Venezuela and those individuals fighting on the side of
democracy. Does the gentleman from Virginia agree?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do. I thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) for
their statements and leadership.
I think by their speaking today it sends a message to the world with
regard to the importance of us promoting democracy and freedom in
Venezuela. Democracy and human rights, whether it be in Venezuela or
any place else, are basic fundamental freedoms that must always be
preserved and supported.
The United States should always stand with those fighting for those
freedoms. The United States should continue to send a clear message to
everyone that we will stand with people like Ms. Machado and others
like her who speak out for democracy.
I think what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) have done is send a message
to the world. They have sent a message to the National Endowment For
Democracy that when there is another grant application, that
application should be met so she has that opportunity for freedom.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, moving to one other matter,
it is my understanding that the 2006 Science, State, Justice and
Commerce Appropriations bill requires agencies to notify the Committee
on Appropriations 15 days before funds are reprogrammed to implement e-
government initiatives.
As the chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over
the E-Government Act, and in fact I was one of the authors of the E-
Government Act, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) if
he will share information that he obtains with the Committee on
Government Reform on the funding and implementation of e-government
initiatives in this bill so we could be so advised.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be happy to provide the
Committee on Government Reform with information received from the
administration regarding e-government initiatives.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Chocola:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
to employ any individual under the title ``artist in
residence''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his
good work on this bill. I also appreciate the opportunity to offer this
amendment.
This amendment is really about prioritizing spending and fiscal
responsibility. Over the last 2 years, NASA has spent $20,000 for an
artist-in-residence program. My amendment is designed to prevent or
limit that practice in the future.
Mr. Chairman, nowhere in NASA's mission does it say anything about
advancing fine arts or hiring a performance artist. In fact, Laurie
Anderson, the person that was chosen to perform the role of a
performance artist, when she was called to be offered the job, she
said, Sure, what do I do?
And the response she got from NASA was, Well, we do not know; we have
never done this before.
One of the first things that I did in 2003 after I showed up as a new
Member of Congress is I attended a memorial service for the Columbia
astronauts. Certainly, spending money by NASA on a performance artist
and a artist-in-residence program does nothing to make sure that the
shuttle program gets back into space and prevents such tragedies in the
future.
Now $20,000 may not seem like much in the Halls of Congress; but to
the average American family, it is a significant amount of money. I
wish I could say that NASA is boldly wasting taxpayer money where no
agency has wasted it before, but I am afraid that the artist-in-
residence program is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
Recently, the Heritage Foundation identified $386 billion of waste,
fraud, and abuse in government spending. Every American business and
every American family must make hard decisions to stand by their budget
and eliminate wasteful funding, and the Federal Government should be no
different and NASA should not be spending taxpayer dollars on a
performance artist. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHOCOLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I accept
it.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, I am going to agree to the
amendment, but I would like to have some comment before I do.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a regrettable amendment for a number of
reasons.
First of all, it involves an awfully little bit of money. Secondly, I
think it sends a really bad signal. Indeed, one of NASA's missions is
to inspire; and it has had an arts program, a very small arts program
since 1962. Such luminaries as Norman Rockwell have participated in it
over the years.
It is in furtherance of part of NASA's mission. NASA's mission is to
inspire, to educate. Indeed, in the education theme of NASA's FY 2006
budget, it states: ``To develop the next generation of explorers, NASA
must do its part to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in
science and technology and engineering and in mathematics.''

{time} 1500

A part of it is connectivity. One of the ways NASA has done that, if
anyone has visited its facilities, is through beautiful murals and
other art initiatives. This particular initiative that the gentleman is
speaking to is the appointment of Laurie Anderson as an

[[Page H4531]]

artist-in-residence, which is another phase, if you will, in NASA's
arts program. It is a worthy program. It has developed over those years
since 1962 an awful lot of memorable artworks. There is no reason to
believe that this initiative, which is so modest in nature, would do
anything but further enhance the arts program at NASA. Again, it is so
small that it is just minuscule. I am afraid the amendment really
represents more art bashing than it does good fiscal policy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As a member of the Committee on Science,
might I just say to the gentleman, he could not be more correct as
relates to a tool of inspiration. Let me also emphasize that the
Committee on Science works in a bipartisan way on education, helping to
educate young people or encourage young people to participate or to be
interested in math and science.
One of the key issues happens to be girls in math and science and for
them to be unafraid of those disciplines. This kind of inspirational
film that was first shown internationally and then shown nationally is
the kind of very small investment that seeks to inspire similarly as
young people were inspired in the 1960s, led by President John F.
Kennedy and Camelot, speaking about our ability to travel into space.
I am disappointed that we would focus $20,000 on this very positive
effort. I would hope that we would think of this in a different manner.
I would hope that boys and girls and young people across America who
are deciding to go into the sciences and get graduate degrees and
Ph.D.s and might, I say particularly those in the Hispanic and African
American community, which we work on in a bipartisan way on the Science
Committee, Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions,
I would hope that they would still have an opportunity to see an
inspiring film such as this one, and that NASA would not be limited
from investing in educational projects that will generate millions of
dollars in research and opportunity for our youth.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an art-bashing amendment. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It is simply a fiscal responsibility amendment.
We must make decisions on how to prioritize spending. NASA will
continue to have an art program. They have an art curator. They have an
education program with a chief education officer. The ability to
communicate the mission of NASA and the benefits of space exploration
are still intact fully. But we have to make hard decisions. Having an
artist-in-residence that produces a play that has minimal, if any,
relationship to NASA and the mission of NASA is not wise spending of
taxpayer dollars.
I appreciate the chairman's support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. 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 Mrs. Jones of Ohio:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following title:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to close or consolidate any office of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission or to make any reductions
in the number of full-time officers or employees in any such
office, or to reduce the number of full-time officers or
employees serving as supervisors, management officials,
mediators, examiners, investigators, or attorneys in such
office, as part of any workforce repositioning,
restructuring, or reorganizing of the Commission that is
authorized under law.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) for cosponsoring this amendment. Our amendment deals with the
issue of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I am a former
trial lawyer for the EEOC and also want to add the name of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as a supporter
of this amendment. She would be here, but she had another piece of
legislation to work on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my good colleague from Ohio for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission has been charged with ensuring that all citizens get a fair
shot in the workplace, but now the Chair of the Commission is pushing a
reorganization plan which may seriously compromise the agency's ability
to protect employees from discrimination. This plan has had neither
hearing nor review by this body. Nevertheless, the administration
proposal is that many offices will be downgraded while others will
experience an increase in jurisdiction and workload without a
comparable increase in staff. This is in addition to an already growing
backlog of cases which have yet to be investigated.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could say that since the passage of employment
antidiscrimination laws that discrimination has been eliminated in the
workplace, but the truth is discrimination still exists. Job applicants
are all too frequently judged on the basis of their skin color. Women
are still subjected to sexual harassment. Persons with disabilities are
passed over for employment even when they have the necessary skills.
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of the Jones-
Capps amendment so that we can ensure that our constituents will
continue to find a resource available to them which will protect them
from discrimination in the workplace.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I can assure the gentlewoman that the committee has been closely
following EEOC's plan to reorganize over the last 3 years. The
committee has even asked the Government Accountability Office to
evaluate EEOC's proposals to reposition the agency with a particular
focus on the National Contact Center pilot project. I just asked the
staff. GAO has not come back yet, and they are not late. We just asked
them to do this last year.
Also we have language in the bill on page 78 that says, ``Provided
further, That the Commission may take no action to implement any
workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization until such
time as the Committees on Appropriations have been notified of such
proposals in accordance with the reprogramming provisions of section
605 of this act.''
The gentleman from West Virginia and myself would look at that before
they could go ahead. It really does, though, unnecessarily restrict the
agency's ability to restructure. We will be glad to work with the
gentlewoman and listen to her, but I think just to accept this
amendment now would really be wrong, particularly with the language
that we currently have in this bill that provides that the Committee on
Appropriations can stop any reorganization, or they have to come up to
the committee before they move ahead.
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia
so much for the support he has given me with regard to repositioning of
the EEOC, but the issue is so important to the people that I represent
that I must continue to argue my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
In the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda that we rolled out on
January

[[Page H4532]]

27 of this year, one of the things that we said was we cannot take a
step back in the employment area, and that one of the important things
that we have to have is aggressive enforcement of the employment
discrimination laws of the Nation.
It was shocking to us when on May 13 of this year, we received notice
that on May 16, the EEOC was planning to vote on a restructuring
proposal. We immediately sent out a letter to the EEOC saying, please
do not reduce the number of district offices from 23 to 15 or downgrade
the field offices and reduce the number of attorneys' positions,
because that could have a substantial negative effect on the
enforcement of our employment discrimination laws. The last thing we
need is to take a step back from enforcement. We need to be taking more
aggressive steps to provide more employment opportunities, not taking
steps backwards.
We think this amendment is absolutely critical. On behalf of the 42
House Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment and absolutely guarantee that no action can
be taken on this restructuring proposal.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
As I said, I served as a trial lawyer for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in the Cleveland district office. As a part of
that responsibility, we were required to oversee parts of Kentucky,
parts of Cincinnati, and several other areas. It is very, very
important that a sufficient number of workers are available to handle
EEOC cases.
The other thing that is so very important is the fact that training
in the laws of EEOC are very important. It is my understanding that
there is a proposal to put in place in area offices temporary workers
to answer the phone who have no experience in EEOC laws or litigating
or being able to advise persons calling in. That is the reason that I
would offer the amendment that says that none of the funds made
available in this act may be used to close or consolidate any office of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or to make any reductions
to the number of full-time officers or employees in any such office, or
to reduce the number of full-time officers or employees serving as
supervisors.
Currently the caseload of the EEOC continues to rise at the same time
we are reducing the number of workers available to try, litigate or
even consolidate or settle some of these cases.

{time} 1515

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman, and other
members of the committee for the support they have given me with regard
to the EEOC, but I would continue to say this area is so very
important, we cannot afford to sit down on the issue.
Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I would like to thank my staffer
Terence Houston for all the work he has done on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the
gentlewoman is trying to do. I again want to remind Members, though,
that the language in the bill prohibits them from moving ahead until
they come to the Committee on Appropriations. So I oppose the language
because the language unnecessarily restricts the agency's ability to
restructure itself to meet the ever-changing needs of its constituency.
We will listen to the gentlewoman, but an outright ban on closing or
consolidating offices does not seem responsible in this tight budgetary
requirement. We know that the EEOC is currently managing in a tight
budget, and I think tying their hands could actually make the matters
worse.
I am sure the gentlewoman is going to move ahead with her amendment.
I think that is fine. We will work with her if she wins. God bless her.
If she loses, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I
will work to make sure that before we approve any reprogramming, we
talk to her and also let her see what the GAO says when they come up
with their report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

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

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to enforce the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of
Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In Russelburg v. Gibson County, a Federal district judge in the
Southern District of Indiana ruled that the presence of a monument
depicting the Ten Commandments in Gibson County amounts to a government
establishment of religion because, as he stated, the display ``is in
violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the
United States Constitution.''
This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent of the
framers and the Christian heritage of the United States, which was
recounted by the Supreme Court in 1892. While it is true this opinion
is consistent with more recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that
Congress exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this
judicial misunderstanding. My amendment would prevent any funds from
being used to enforce this unconstitutional and unlawful judgment.
The local Fraternal Order of Eagles placed the monument on the Gibson
County courthouse lawn in 1956. Clearly, this generous gift to the
community is not the equivalent of Congress passing a law to establish
a national religion.
Mr. Chairman, here are the facts: Federal statute says, ``Except as
otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States
Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders
issued under the authority of the United States . . . ''
Since this ruling by the Southern District Court in Indiana is not a
lawful decision consistent with the Constitution, I will utilize
Congress's article I, section 8 power of the purse to prevent any
funding from being used by the U.S. Marshals Service to remove the Ten
Commandments monument.
Mr. Chairman, the Founders of this great Nation foresaw the problem
of courts imposing their own political views through their judgments
and wrote about it.
In promoting the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander
Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: ``Whoever attentively considers
the different departments of power must perceive that in a government
in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary . . . is
beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power;
``The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the
purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the
society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be
said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment . . . ''
Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor
will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert
that force and will.
Time and again I am sure that my fellow Members of Congress are asked
about unconstitutional decisions made by the Federal courts, and many
of us say there is nothing we can do. That answer is inconsistent with
our Constitution and the vision of our Founders. We can do something.

[[Page H4533]]

And, Mr. Chairman, that is not only my opinion and the opinion of the
framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Federalist Papers.
It is also the opinion of a rather noted jurist by the name of John
Marshall. Many in this body may recall that Mr. Marshall was actually
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. While he served as
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had an occasion to correspond
with an Associate Justice, Samuel Chase.
It seems that Justice Chase was the object of impeachment proceedings
in the House of Representatives for, among other things, suggesting
that Federal judiciary could disregard the clear intent of the
legislature when considering cases before his court.
Chief Justice Marshall asserted to Justice Chase that there was a
superior mechanism for the legislature to consider over that of
impeachment when the Congress disapproved of the opinion of the Federal
judiciary. Marshal stated: ``I think the modern doctrine of impeachment
should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A
reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature
would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than
would a removal of the judge who has rendered them unknowing of his
fault.''
Marshall's Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Albert Beveridge,
observes of this assertion made by Marshall 11 months after Marbury v.
Madison: ``Marshall thus suggested the most radical method for
correcting judicial decisions ever advanced, before or since, by any
man of the first class. Appeals from the Supreme Court to Congress.
Senators and Representatives to be the final judges of any judicial
decision with which a majority of the House was dissatisfied.''
Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to exercise that
very authority ``advanced'' by Chief Justice Marshall concerning the
legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary.
After this vote, Mr. Chairman, our constituents will ask us,
Congressman, do we have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, or
are we condemned to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may
not inject common sense into the judiciary's opinions?
And we will be able to tell them, Yes, you do have a say. The
Constitution explicitly provides it. And venerated jurists such as John
Marshall have ``advanced'' it.
This legislation is where we fund any executive agency that would
enforce the Southern District Court of Indiana's judgment in this case.
My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to
enforce the erroneous decision in Russelburg v. Gibson County, and I
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the issue in this amendment has nothing to do with the
Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with whether the Ten
Commandments, or a sculpture of them, I assume, should be removed from
wherever it is in Indiana. The issue in this amendment is should
Congress prohibit the enforcement of a decree of a Federal court. There
is nothing more fundamental to the rule of law in this country that
once a Federal court issues a decision, sometimes it may be appealable,
but once there is a final court order, that is the law.
Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison 200 years ago, and
I know that the gentleman from Indiana stated he thinks that case was
wrongly decided, and he is entitled to his opinion, but it is the
foundation of law in this country that it is emphatically the duty of
the judiciary to say what the law is.
If Congress wants to change the law, that is our prerogative. If we
want to begin the process of amending the Constitution, that is our
prerogative. But in terms of interpreting what the law is, what the
Constitution commands, what the law passed pursuant to the Constitution
says, that is the job of the courts. To fail to enforce court orders,
to arrogate to this body the right to say that we do not like a
particular decision, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of
the Constitution, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of a
law that we passed, therefore they may not enforce the law, is to say
that we are no longer a Nation of laws. It is to say that we are no
longer a Nation governed by a Constitution.
This amendment is subversive in the extreme. If we can adopt this
amendment saying that we shall not enforce the decision ``no funds
herein appropriated may be used to enforce the decision of the court,''
in this particular instance in the Southern District of Indiana, then
we can pass a bill that says we shall not enforce a decision of the
court that says so and so may not go to jail or so and so must go to
jail or anything else.
No Member of this House who believes in the rule of law should vote
for this amendment. The subject matter on which it is specifically
aimed, the particular decision of the court, is not relevant. When
President Eisenhower was faced in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 with a
question of sending in U.S. marshals to enforce the decree of the court
in desegregating Little Rock High School, he did not approve of that
decision. His biographers tell us he was not happy with it. But he sent
in the U.S. marshals because the law, as decreed by the courts, as
passed by Congress, as interpreted by the courts, must be enforced.
If that is not the case, if the court's determination of what the law
is is not the final arbiter, which we had that once in our history,
then the final arbiter becomes the cannons and the guns. The rule of
law must be supreme in this country.
During the Clinton impeachment, we heard from the other side of the
aisle about the rule of law. We disagreed with the rule of law
dictated, but here there can be no question. The court orders must be
enforced, and anyone who says that we shall not spend money to enforce
a court order because I do not like that particular court order or we
do not agree with that particular court order is subversive of liberty,
subversive of the Constitution, subversive of every human right, and
subversive of the very notion of American liberty and democracy.
This amendment should not be agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has 30 seconds remaining and he has the right
to close.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There have been the terms ``subversive'' and ``subversion'' used a
lot in the gentleman's remarks. I would simply like to point the
gentleman to the very words of the individual he believed he was
quoting from earlier in that the final word by Chief Justice Marshall,
while he was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is very
clear. It may be considered by the gentleman from New York to be
subversive, but it is quite clear. John Marshall said: ``I think the
modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate
jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions
deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with
the mildness of our character than would a removal of the judge who has
rendered them unknowing of his fault.''
Let us today preserve the subversion of Chief Justice John Marshall
and allow this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on

[[Page H4534]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8__. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to facilitate the issuance of affirmances by single
members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) without an
accompanying opinion.

{time} 1530

That means they have nothing to rely upon at a subsequent time. This
really goes to the question of legal immigration, and it goes to the
question of ensuring that we are vigorous in protecting and fighting
for legal immigration as we are for fighting against illegal
immigration.
This would protect the due process rights of the petitioner. The
proportion of affirmances without opinion decided by a single board
member has increased from 10 percent to over 50 percent of all board
decisions beginning immediately after the new rules were proposed.
Part, of course, of the reason is because of the overwhelming number of
cases.
At the same time, the proportion of cases that are favorable to the
alien decreased. Prior to proposing the procedure reforms, one in four
cases were decided in favor of the opinion. Since then, only 1 in 10 is
decided in favor of the alien, and there is no opinion, just an
affirmation.
It is important to note that a wide number of organizations and
academics in immigration law believe that these affirmances without
opinion by single-member review has created bad legal and
administrative precedent and an incentive to rubber-stamp immigration
judges' decisions. Affirmance without opinion is much faster and easier
than writing a decision and creates an incentive, whether conscious or
unconscious, for board members to meet case processing guidelines by
affirming removal orders, notwithstanding the merits of the appeal. The
rights of the petitioner and due process requires a thorough review.
That is what the appeals process is all about.
Moreover, intellectual rigor in decisionmaking may be diminished
because board members no longer need to articulate the basis for their
decisions. They need only to decide whether they agree with the result
ultimately reached by the immigration judge. A panel of three board
members is far more likely to catch an error below than a single board
member.
In the immigration context, there is only one administrative hearing
before the case reaches the board. Other administrative agencies that
employ single-member review have several layers of administrative
process. That is why it is important to change or to look into this
procedure at the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.
Single-member review makes it difficult for the board itself to
determine whether its members are making errors. The courts of appeal,
when such review is available, similarly lack guidance when reviewing
the decisions of the immigration judges and the board.
Now I would like to reaffirm my position, which is to suggest that
the idea of a de novo hearing in the Federal District Court and the
Court of Appeals is an option that should be considered important by
giving the Bureau, if you will, more substance in its determination.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentlewoman
is withdrawing the amendment; is that accurate?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank her for bringing this to our
attention.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the
chairman. This is a colloquy that is before him.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I do
not have a colloquy before me. We are aware of the amendment. The
gentlewoman makes some valid points. What I told the staff to say is we
would work to see what could be done with regard to the filing. But I
understand the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am
withdrawing it with the idea that it is an important issue, and I hope
that the committee can work together with me on this issue, because, as
I indicated in my earlier remarks, the importance of fighting for a
system of legal immigration that shows due diligence is as important as
it is for fighting against illegal immigration.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentlewoman. As we understand
more and learn about it, we will keep good faith and work with the
gentlewoman, and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 15 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. 15 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, book sales
records, or book customer lists.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, 2005,
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 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from

[[Page H4535]]

New Mexico (Mr. Udall), I am again offering the freedom to read
amendment. This tripartisan amendment, which has the support of
progressives, conservatives and people of all political stripes, would
prevent the Justice Department and the FBI from using section 215 of
the PATRIOT Act to access library circulation records, library patron
lists, book sale records or book customer lists.
This amendment is being supported throughout our country by
librarians, book sellers and all Americans who want Congress to be
vigorous in protecting the American people from terrorism, but want to
make sure that we do that without undermining the basic constitutional
rights which have made us the free country that we are.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is similar to the amendment I offered
last year, which lost by a 210-210 vote after the voting rolls had been
kept open for an extra 20 minutes.
There is one difference in this amendment compared to last year's
that I do want to emphasize: I have heard from some Members who have
expressed concerns about the possible need for the FBI to access
library Internet records. Some Members believe that by exempting
library Internet records from section 215, we could be creating an
opportunity for terrorists.
The amendment today addresses that concern and does not apply to
library Internet records. Under this amendment, the FBI could still use
a section 215 order to obtain these records. This amendment only
applies to the records that contain information on which books people
are checking out of the library or buying from a bookstore.
Mr. Speaker, setting aside all of the legalese, let me tell you what
this amendment does. Let me also tell you why the American Library
Association, the American Booksellers Association and many other
organizations are supporting it. Let me also at this time remind
Members that seven States, Vermont, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Maine and Montana, as well as 379 municipalities across the country,
have gone on record by passing resolutions expressing their concerns
about the PATRIOT Act.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know that when they borrow a
book from a library or buy a book from the bookstore that the
government will not have access to the titles of the books they are
reading. They want to read what they want to read without government
looking over their shoulder and without Uncle Sam becoming Big Brother
and spying on them.
Under section 215 as currently written, the FBI can walk into a
secret FISA court, tell a judge that he is doing an investigation on
terrorism, and that judge has to grant the FBI the right to go to a
library or a bookstore and obtain their reading records. The FBI need
not show probable cause nor even reasonable grounds to believe that the
person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activities. The
simple truth is that the FBI could spy on a person because they do not
like the books she reads or because she wrote a letter to the editor
critical of government policy.
Further, those served with section 215 orders are prohibited from
disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the
surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been
compromised.
Mr. Speaker, that is not supposed to be what America is about and not
what a free society is about. If the government can make the case that
getting records from a library or bookstore can help us fight
terrorism, I want them to get those records. In fact, they have always
had the ability to get those records and will be able to get those
records in the future through normal law enforcement processes.
But whether it is through the grand jury subpoena process or the
process of getting a search warrant, there are well-established
judicial safeguards to protect Americans' basic civil liberties from
government overreaching. Under those long-established judicial
safeguards, the FBI must demonstrate that its need for information is
legitimate. They cannot get it just because they want it, and that is
what this amendment is all about.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia claims the time in
opposition and is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10
hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to this
issue. The Committee on the Judiciary is planning on marking up the
PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the near future, and the
authorizers will certainly give this very close attention.
The authority of the Justice Department to obtain a library or
bookstore record is not without appropriate checks and balances. A
Federal judge must approve the use of this authority before the
Department of Justice can obtain business records, including book
records. This authority can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence
information, not concerning a U.S. person, or ``to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' It
cannot be used to review the reading habits of the general public.
Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record a letter from the Justice
Department dated June 14. It says the following:
``Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from
similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to
obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and
libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent
case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a
subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had
purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly
unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was
important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber.
``In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury
subpoenaed records from the public libraries in Miami Beach. Similar in
the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York
subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the
gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who
had checked out that poet's book.
``Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe
havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public
libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators.
For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New
York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al
Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted
that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited the
library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the
individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist
associates around the world.''
Lastly, it goes on to say, ``We know that Brian Regan, a former TRW
employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was
convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public
libraries in northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the
embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence, which also
showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, `How to Be
Invisible,' to further his scheme, was critical during his trial.''
Mr. Chairman, I include the entire letter for the Record.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and
Commerce, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice is pleased to
provide information about section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act
(``PATRIOT Act''), an invaluable authority afforded to
national security investigators when Congress overwhelmingly
passed the Act more than three years ago. It is critical that
Congress' decision whether to continue this vital tool in the
war on terror be informed by reason, rather than rhetoric. We
would oppose any amendment that would unduly restrict our
ability to compel the production of records relevant to
sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations. As stated
in the statement of Administration policy released today on
H.R. 2862--Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006--if any amendment that
would weaken the PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to
the President for his signature, the President's senior
advisors would recommend a veto.

[[Page H4536]]

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides a useful tool for
catching terrorists and spies by specifically authorizing the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISA Court'') to
require a person or organization to produce ``tangible
things'' that are relevant to international terrorism and
espionage investigations. These are the same types of
materials that prosecutors have long been able to obtain with
grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations. Moreover,
section 215 and grand jury subpoenas are both governed by a
similar relevance standard; with respect to section 215, the
requested records must be relevant to a national security
investigation while with respect to grand jury subpoenas, the
requested records must be relevant to a criminal
investigation. As a result, section 215 applies in a much
narrower set of circumstances than do grand jury subpoenas.
While grand jury subpoenas can be used to investigate all
types of criminal conduct, section 215 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, provided
that such investigation of a United States person is not
conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
the first amendment to the Constitution.'' 50 U.S.C.
Sec. 1861(a)(1).
Further, contrary to misleading rhetoric about section 215,
it does not empower FBI agents to obtain records without a
court order. Rather, section 215 can be used to obtain
documents only with an order from the FISA Court. Thus the
Department's use of section 215 requires more scrutiny than
do grand jury subpoenas, which are generally issued without
prior judicial approval. Moreover, we have taken the position
in litigation that: 1) recipients of a section 215 order may
disclose receipt of an order to an attorney and; 2)
recipients may challenge a section 215 order in FISA court.
In addition, the Attorney General has testified that the
Department of Justice supports amending section 215 to
clarify any ambiguity related to these points.
In addition to the requirement of court approval, this
provision establishes other important safeguards. For
instance, section 215 provides for thorough congressional
oversight. On a semi-annual basis, the Attorney General is
required to ``fully inform'' Congress on the Department's use
of section 215. In addition, the Attorney General must report
to Congress the number of times agents have sought a court
order under section 215, as well as the number of times such
requests were granted, modified, or denied during the
preceding six month period. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1862.
The Attorney General recently declassified the fact that as
of March 30, 2005 section 215 of the PATRIOT Act had been
used 35 times, and had never been used to obtain bookstore or
library records, medical records, or gun sale records.
Rather, section 215 orders had only been used to obtain
driver's license records, public accommodations records,
apartment leasing records, credit card records, and
subscriber information, such as names and addresses, for
telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen
register devices. These figures demonstrate that
investigators have used this tool judiciously and
responsibly. The provision, moreover, has assisted the
Department's national security investigations as there can be
a number of situations in which the ability to access
documents pursuant to a section 215 order is critical to an
international terrorism or espionage investigation,
particularly in the early stages of an investigation when
officers are trying to develop leads.
Section 215 has been attacked for its potential application
to libraries, with some critics suggesting that libraries
should be exempted from it or that the provision should be
repealed altogether. These critics ignore statutory context,
well-established grand jury practice, and the reality of the
terrorist threat. First, although a section 215 order could
be issued to a bookstore or library if it possessed records
relevant to an espionage or international terrorism
investigation, the provision does not single them out or even
mention them. Indeed, as noted above, the provision, as of
March 30, 2005, had never been used to request library
records. And, in any event, such a request would have to be
approved by a court, ensuring an independent check on the
Department's investigators.
Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt
from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have
always been able to obtain records for criminal
investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand
jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic
Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a
bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had
purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a
particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several
bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as
the bomber. In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida
grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami
Beach. Similarly, in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a
grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after
investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by
a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked
out that poet's books.
Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out
as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact,
used public libraries to do research and communicate with
their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of
2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted
surveillance on an individual who was associated with al
Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual,
investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his
home, he repeatedly visited a library to use the computer.
Investigators discovered that the individual was using the
library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around
the world. The library's hard drives were scrubbed after each
user finished, and he used the computer at the library
because he believed that the library permitted him to
communicate free of any monitoring. This individual is now in
Federal custody.
In addition, investigators tracing the activities of the 9-
11 hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of
2001, individuals using internet accounts registered to Nawaf
Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdar used public access computers in
the library of a State college in New Jersey. The computers
in the library were used to shop for and review airline
tickets on an internet travel reservations site. Al Hazmi and
Al Mihdar were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77,
which took off from Dulles Airport and crashed into the
Pentagon. The last documented visit to the library occurred
on August 30, 2001. On that occasion, records indicate that a
person using Al Hazmi's account used the library's computer
to review September 11 reservations that had been previously
booked.
Similarly, investigators have received information that
individuals believed to be Wail Al Shehri, Waleed Al Shehri,
and Marwan Al Shehhi visited the Delray Beach Public Library,
in Delray Beach, Florida. Wail Al Shehri and Waleed Al Shehri
entered the library one afternoon in July of 2001 and asked
to use the library's computers to access the internet. After
about an hour, a third man, Marwan Al Shehhi, joined them.
Waleed and Wail Al Shehri were hijackers aboard American
Airlines Flight 11, while Al Shehhi was the pilot who took
control of United Airlines Flight 175. Both of those
flights crashed into the World Trade Center. A witness who
recognized photos of the three individuals that ran in
newspaper articles after the September 11 attacks,
provided the information about the Delray Beach library
visit. While no records exist to confirm the hijackers'
visit to the Delray Beach library, the timing, location
and behavior described are consistent with other
information gathered in the course of the investigation.
We also know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the
National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of
espionage, extensively used computers at five public
libraries in Northern Virginia and Maryland to access
addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments.
This evidence--which also showed that Regan consulted a book
present at the library, How to be Invisible, to further his
scheme--was critical during his trial.
Simply put, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides
national security investigators with an important tool for
investigating and intercepting terrorism, and at the same
time establishes robust safeguards to protect law-abiding
Americans. We hope that this information assists you.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please
do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional
assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised
us that from the perspective of the Administration's program,
there is no objection to submission of this letter.
Sincerely,
William E. Moschella,
Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I see the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) down there. I listened to her the other day on NPR. I was the
author of the National Commission on Terrorism. They all laughed on it,
frankly, and had I not been on the Committee on Appropriations, we
could not have gotten it passed. The gentlewoman was on, and I remember
the gentlewoman's statement the other day where she said had they
listened to the recommendations, which this Congress and almost nobody
did, of the Commission, maybe, maybe, 9/11 may not have taken place.
I do not know if the gentleman's amendment is the right amendment or
not. I do know that 30 people from my congressional district died in
the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. I also know that the first CIA
agent, from my congressional district, from Manassas Park, was the
first one to die in the attack when we went into Afghanistan with
regard to the Taliban.
Now, is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) right? Maybe. But is
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wrong? Maybe.
So I say in the interest of what took place in this country, and
because of the fact that nobody listened to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) and also the Bremer Commission, and the fact is
we were ridiculed by it when it came out, and the CIA even opposed it
and ridiculed it, and the gentlewoman is right, had it been listened
to, and I say listened to the

[[Page H4537]]

authorizers, let us see what the authorizers say. Then the gentleman,
after he listens can come out on that committee and offer an amendment,
and it ought to be made in order.
This is not the place, and I do not want to make a mistake that may
very well lead to something else happening, because, God forbid, if
something else happened in this country, and the FBI comes under our
jurisdiction, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) knows
more about it than I do, but there are people, Hamas is in this
country, Hezbollah is in this country, the person who planned the
bombing that killed 241 marines walks the streets of Lebanon, and
nothing has been done.

{time} 1545

If I thought that perhaps this amendment could maybe have one
opportunity whereby we would miss somebody like that, I could not live
with myself.
So the gentleman may be right, but the gentleman may be wrong. Let us
defeat this amendment and allow the authorizers to deal with it and
have a full, fair debate after the hearings.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would remind my friend,
as I am sure he already knows, that we have exempted computers that he
referred to in several instances from the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of the amendment for
yielding me this time, and I also appreciate the comments of the
chairman in the debate that just preceded this.
Mr. Chairman, in past years, I have opposed the Sanders amendment on
two grounds. First, I felt the appropriate time to revise the PATRIOT
Act was this year, because key provisions are sunsetting this year.
Second, as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I know, as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf)
also knows, that terrorists use Internet sites to communicate, and
believe law enforcement needs to access terrorist traffic on these
sites.
This year, the amendment's sponsors have eliminated reference to
library Internet sites, and their amendment arises as Congress
undertakes a serious review of the PATRIOT Act. Because the amendment
has been altered and the timing is right, I am pleased to support it.
Law enforcement must have the ability to prevent and disrupt
terrorist plots on our soil, but this is a sensible amendment for the
following reasons: first, section 215, as currently written, is
unnecessarily broad. It permits the government to obtain ``any tangible
thing'' as long as it is ``sought for'' a terrorist investigation. This
is a sweeping power which even the Justice Department agrees can be cut
back.
I believe Congress should modify section 215 to require that the
government show that the items sought belong to or would lead the
government to an agent of a foreign power, the traditional FISA
standard.
Second, I see no evidence that seizing someone's documentary library
or bookstore records is needed to combat terrorism. The Justice
Department has never sought a 215 order to obtain library records. In
the rare case that a law enforcement official believes access to these
records is necessary, other remedies exist. The PATRIOT Act eliminated,
and I supported, the so-called ``wall'' between criminal and
intelligence investigations, thus allowing criminal subpoenas or
warrants to be secured more easily.
And third, as mentioned, this amendment, wisely, would not preclude
law enforcement from obtaining library Internet records.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has an opportunity, indeed, an obligation to
modify some of the authorities of the PATRIOT Act that went too far in
eroding our civil liberties. This amendment signals our intention to do
so, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. I say to my friend from the Green Mountains, he and I have
different political philosophies, and my friend from Vermont and I are
light years apart; but he will recall I vote with him every now and
then, but I think he is wrong on this one.
The subcommittee on which I sit, the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, we
have conducted nine oversight hearings, Mr. Chairman; and although I am
not sure the public at large is aware of this, section 215 now before
us, the so-called ``library provision,'' does not even mention the word
``library.'' It covers business records. And, yes, section 215 could be
used to obtain business records from a library. But we also know that
from the Attorney General's oral testimony to our committee on April 6
section 215 has never been used to obtain business records from a
library, nor has section 215 been used to obtain bookstore records,
medical records, or gun sale records.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, no evidence has been presented to this
committee, or to the Department of Justice's Inspector General, of any
abuse of section 215 for any use. We also know that the Department of
Justice's response to questions from our committee that terrorists are
indeed using our libraries; so at some point, section 215 may well be
needed there, as the distinguished gentleman from Virginia just said
earlier.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record: some of my best
friends are librarians, so I am in no way advocating turning the dogs
loose on libraries. That is not the intent at all. I think section 215
has served us well. I do not think it has been abused.
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 thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I do not
see any necessity for the amendment. It was put in in the period of
time after
9/11 where a lot of people were very frightened; and I think, quite
frankly, that we as a Congress overreacted.
I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the
government being able to get a list of books that the American people
read. Now, if there is a special condition that exists where they want
to know about a particular individual, nothing precludes a legitimate
search warrant to find out exactly what this information is about. But
I just think that it is totally unnecessary to have this.
This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C-SPAN; and after he
left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She
was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia
and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without
search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany
and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government's ability
to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in
generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and
right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act,
and she talked about it in general.
I might not be an alarmist about it, but I am very concerned. I do
think we have moved in the wrong direction and that we should be very
cautious and protect the privacy of all American citizens.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a former attorney general of the
State of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, let us understand
the context in which we are discussing this. This is post-9/11. This is
after we have lost 3,000 people. This is after we understood that we
had set up inappropriate barriers so that we could look at intelligence
information, so that it could give us a forewarning of what might be
out there.
There are those who have gotten up here and said, look, there are
other

[[Page H4538]]

techniques that can be used, a grand jury subpoena, a search warrant.
Yes, but that requires the actuality of some proof of a crime at the
time.
That is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about
here is the distinction between criminal investigations, in which law
enforcement uses search warrants and grand jury subpoenas, and foreign
intelligence investigations, in which law enforcement uses section 215
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to request business
records.
This amendment would surely restrict intelligence investigations
designed to protect against international terrorism and clandestine
intelligence activities. These activities do not always appear
beforehand to be a crime.
For instance, it was not a crime for the members of al Qaeda to learn
to fly airplanes in the U.S. However, if a member of al Qaeda goes into
the library and checks out books on the tallest buildings in New York
and a book on how to fly a plane, it could be relevant to an
international terrorism case under FISA before you have proof of a
crime. That is what we are talking about here. You have to go before
the FISA court. You have to show that it is related to international
terrorism. You just cannot go willy-nilly in and ask for any sort of
document that you want.
Also, the Justice Department has looked at this amendment and
believes that, in fact, despite the gentleman's efforts to try and
eliminate coverage of computers, they believe that the Sanders
amendment would cover sign-in sheets, including those using sign-in
sheets to use the computer, so that it would not allow this
investigative tool to be utilized in intelligence investigations.
Let us understand what we are talking about: intelligence
investigations for international espionage. We are not talking about
regular crimes. That is why there is a distinction. You are going to
prohibit us from utilizing this tool, and there is no example, there is
no evidence of abuse.
We have had 12 hearings on this. We have looked at it. In fact, as
the law requires right now, the Department has to report to us on a
regular basis on these sorts of things. We examine these things. I just
ask why you would resolve doubt in favor of compromising our ability to
go into intelligence that could lead to the uncovering of a terrorist
plot.
We do not have all the lead time when we are talking about these
things. That is why there is a distinction in the law carefully built
in. That is why we have a separate FISA court. That is why we have
judges who have expertise on this. That is why we require the oversight
by the Committee on the Judiciary. We have built in these particular
protections.
I would just say, rather than present this type of response to
legitimate concerns people have about privacy, examine the law as it
currently exists, examine the purpose, and understand the difference
between a criminal investigation and an intelligence investigation, and
why we have this different procedure.
Yes, it is unique, because we have unique circumstances presented to
us. We have learned from our errors in the past where we did not have
unique circumstances that allowed us to do these sorts of things. That
is all we have done here. We are in a new world. We are trying to deal
with that world in an effective way without compromising our privacy.
And when on the record there is absolutely no evidence, not one modicum
of evidence that there has been an abuse by the Justice Department, why
we would take this action now, I just do not understand.
So I would ask Members of this body to please defeat this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act, as it stands, forces or
could force users to self-censor their own reading choices, just on
fear alone. Mr. Chairman, censorship is not what America is about.
Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can go after your library or your
book-purchasing records; and librarians or book sellers, under the
penalty of law, cannot inform patrons of the library or the bookstore
that it is under investigation or that a patron's records have been
searched.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Freedom
to Read amendment. America's right to read and purchase books without
fear of government monitoring has been erased by the PATRIOT Act, and
Congress must repeal this unconstitutional provision.
In fact, the ultimate success for terrorists is to change our country
by taking away our rights and our liberties.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do both sides have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 8 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Vermont has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership in
protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties. I also commend the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his important work in that
regard and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the full
committee. Again, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my
compliments, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as
well.

{time} 1600

But I am rising in support of Mr. Sanders' amendment. The amendment
reaffirms the fundamental principle of our history, our Constitution,
and our jurisprudence that our civil liberties that must be protected,
that any intrusion must be narrowly tailored and contain strong
safeguards, and finally, that the executive branch must be accountable
through vigorous congressional and judicial oversight.
In his famous dissent in the Olmstead decision in 1928, Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis called the right to privacy ``the right to be
left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued
by civilized men.'' As he wrote: ``The makers of our Constitution
sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their
emotions and their sensations. To protect that right, every
unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the
individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of
the fourth amendment.''
Against these deeply embedded values that underlie our Constitution,
the President has called for Congress not only to extend and again
rubber-stamp all of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but
also to provide the FBI with additional and unprecedented powers to
seize American citizens' records without the approval of a judge or
grand jury.
The 9/11 Commission, however, last year recommended a full and
informed debate on the PATRIOT Act, and placed the burden of proof on
the President for extending the PATRIOT Act's provisions by
demonstrating that they are actually needed, and that there is adequate
oversight to ensure protection of civil liberties. These conditions
have not been met.
Instead of a full and informed debate, we witnessed all kinds of
other intrusions into the privacy of the American people and silencing
of voices in our country.
When Congress voted for the PATRIOT Act, Members clearly understood
that it would be accompanied by a strong congressional oversight so
that the implementation would not violate our civil liberties. That
oversight has not occurred effectively.
The Attorney General has admitted that the information has not been
forthcoming to the Congress in a timely manner. But for the sunset
provisions and the requirements for the inspector general reports,
there is little doubt that Congress would not even receive the
insufficient information it has received to date.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to obtain
library and bookstore records without any showing of specific facts
that particular individuals are involved with a foreign power or with
terrorism. The only requirement is a statement by the FBI that the
records are sought for an authorized investigation, and the judges have
no authority to deny the application.

[[Page H4539]]

As written, the statute would permit records of innocent and
unsuspecting American citizens to be caught up in dragnets and fishing
expeditions without notification. Finally, the statute has a gag
provision that prohibits the recordholder from talking about the
searches, thereby preventing the public from any information that the
government is abusing these powers.
By itself, section 215 is problematic, and it is sweeping, but this
provision and others are even more problematic when measured by the
policy of the Bush administration which point to an absence of
safeguards. These include the seizure and detention of more than 1,000
noncitizens in the United States without providing them access to
counsel.
In particular, increased surveillance of political and other groups
was made possible by the decision of the Attorney General, Attorney
General Ashcroft, in July 2002 to effectively end what are known as the
Levi guidelines. These guidelines were written in response to
constitutional violations committed by the Nixon administration. The
Levi guidelines prevented the FBI from monitoring political and
religious activity in the absence of specific and articulable facts
justifying a criminal investigation. Attorney Ashcroft, however,
effectively ended these guidelines and permitted the FBI to monitor
political and religious activities without the ``special care'' and
supervision that the Levi guidelines required. And we saw the results
of that policy: According to the New York Times, in November 2003, the
FBI collected information on antiwar demonstrators.
Proponents and the Justice Department claim that section 215 will not
be used solely on the basis of citizens' exercise of the first
amendment, but can we be assured of that, given the effective
revocation of the Levi guidelines and the reported monitoring of
political groups, and the fact that section 215 does not require
specific and articulable facts? Where are the safeguards?
Oversight, at least by this Republican Congress, has not worked. It
is against that backdrop that we consider this amendment today. It is
essential that we pass this amendment to let the world know that we
will protect and defend this Nation, and, as we do so, that we will
protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained
therein. The amendment would not preclude law enforcement from
obtaining the records of individuals that they need upon a showing of
probable cause through their other authorities.
What we choose to read and the books we buy goes to the heart of our
innermost thoughts and our liberty in a free society. These rights must
be defended.
As we look to the future, rather than giving further unchecked powers
without proper justification and safeguards, Congress should look at
the measures to restore the Federal judiciary's role to make sure that
law enforcement agencies do not conduct broad and indiscriminate
searches.
We should not simply extend all of these provisions, but we should
have extensive hearings on the PATRIOT Act, vigorous oversight and
modifications to prevent abuses of our civil liberties.
Unfortunately, these essential objectives are not being met by the
Republican leadership. Instead, they have sought to silence those who
seek to protect our civil liberties and to protect and defend our
Constitution.
We can and we must keep the American people safe without threatening
their civil liberties. Our Founding Fathers knew well the balance
between freedom and liberty. Let us honor their legacy and vote for the
Sanders amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, there are two things that we can say
conclusively since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Number one, there
has not been another 9/11 attack, thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act and
other tools that we have given the law enforcement community here in
the United States.
And number two, there has been a great deal of hysteria generated
around the words ``PATRIOT Act.'' Very little of the actual complaints
can ever be pointed to with respect to anything that the PATRIOT Act
did, but there is enormous amount of hysteria. For example, the very
name of this amendment, the Freedom to Read Act, implies that somehow
there is something anywhere in the PATRIOT Act that denies us the
freedom to read anything we want. Of course the PATRIOT Act does not do
any such thing.
We have heard here today that we need to have some showing of
probable cause to protect American citizens' privacy. Well, I need to
tell you that probable cause is a fine standard after a crime has been
committed. The people that believe probable cause is the appropriate
thing to demonstrate would have us wait until the next 9/11 attack
until we can take efforts and steps to defend ourselves. That does not
work when you are dealing with terrorism.
Folks, the next 9/11-type attack may not be a plane full of citizens.
It may be full of biological or chemical or nuclear weapons. And 3,000
deaths may pale in comparison to the devastation that could be heaped
upon American metropolitan areas in the next attack.
The 215 provisions are very important to understand. They require a
Federal judge, a FISA court to make a determination that, number one,
there is a national security investigation already under way about
somebody other than an American citizen, this cannot be used against
American citizens; and number two, you have to demonstrate that the
entire purpose of the 215 subpoena is based on international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities. This cannot be used to fight
the traditional crimes that most Americans may be concerned about with
respect to their liberties and freedoms. We want, and we are
protecting, those freedoms.
By the way, President Bush's White House, the OMB, has suggested that
if there is any effort to undermine their number one priority as our
administration, and that is to protect the safety of Americans, they
intend to veto this entire appropriations bill.
Listen, if there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly
planes; if they are studying how to put together biological weapons; if
they are studying how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear
weapons; if they are studying how nuclear power plants in America, how
the architecture and design is structured so that they can cause a
devastating attack, we have to have an avenue through the Federal court
system, the FISA intelligence courts, that we can stop the attacks
before it occurs. Treating it as a crime and waiting until after we
have hundreds of thousands of deaths is an inappropriate way to fight
terrorism. It works in crime. It does not work for the next terrorism
disaster, and that is what the proponents of this amendment are asking
for.
215 allows the FBI to request a judicial order. This has to go
through a judge. Over and over we hear that we are going to somehow be
snooped upon by Federal agents without some sort of due process. Well,
a Federal judge is involved at the very outset. It has never been used
in a library.
What this amendment seeks to do is to build a sanctuary where every
terrorist will know in perpetuity that they will be safe to read, to
plan, to do whatever they need to do as long as they do it in a
library. It creates a sanctuary that every terrorist will know will
protect him or her as they create their evil plots to do awful harm and
devastation in the United States of America. That is at all does.
We know there are incidents of the terrorists using our libraries.
And yes, so far they have primarily involved use of the Internet. But
we also know that terrorists used American flight schools. We also know
that terrorists are interested in biological, chemical and nuclear
capabilities, and I believe it is appropriate that our law enforcement
agents, after the proper showing in Federal court, can get these
records and prevent the next attack, not react after we lose hundreds
of thousands of lives.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) for the time and also for

[[Page H4540]]

his leadership on this very important issue.
I rise in strong support of this amendment to repeal section 215 of
the PATRIOT Act and to restore the freedom to read, and that is what
this is about.
Millions of Americans, including my constituents, are especially
incensed with section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Under this provision 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.
Across this Nation, local governments representing more than 52
million people have denounced the entire PATRIOT Act and the
unconstitutional invasion of privacy it represents. The PATRIOT Act was
hastily drafted and is far overreaching. It is contrary to the
fundamental principles for which we stand, and section 215 is
especially chilling.
Families should not be afraid to check out children's books for fear
that they may be investigated for collaborating with terrorists.
Section 215 is un-American. This is not the way to combat terrorism.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have 4 minutes remaining if my arithmetic
is still good. And I have two more speakers, plus I am going to close
in 30 seconds. How much does the other side have?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his time?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Nine and one-half minutes remaining for the gentleman
from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), one of the real fighters for
civil liberties in this Congress.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his
leadership on this issue and his tenacity in continuing to, every year,
fight for the rights of people in the United States to enjoy their
local libraries.
I was interested in listening to the frustrations of one of the
previous speakers on this side of the aisle, and it is obviously the
utterances of a former Attorney General for the government who was
frustrated by the Constitution. And this is precisely what the Founding
Fathers intended. They did not intend for the lawyers to run this
country. And obviously, when we adopted the PATRIOT Act 46 days after
9/11, the lawyers won. And not only that, but the government won.
I just want to point out one thing to everybody here. As you heard
some utterances on this side relative to the need of 215, I want to
remind you that no comment was ever made that the way things happen in
section 215 was legal before for the government before the PATRIOT Act
passed. All they did was just changed one or two major words in that
whole thing.

{time} 1615

Let me share those words with my colleagues, from ``may'' to
``shall.'' Did my colleagues hear the speaker before me talk about how
the judge on the question of section 215 is involved? Involved.
I will tell my colleagues what it is like is the ham and egg
breakfast: the pig's committed; the chicken is just involved. I suspect
that is where this whole bill belongs, back on the farm.
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.
That is 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 America's confidence in the ability
of Congress to protect the freedoms they hold dear.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I feel a certain irony that we are having this debate today in the
aftermath of the final disclosure of the identity of Deep Throat who
was part of an effort in the Federal Government to cover up illegal
acts at the highest level of American government; and, in fact, Deep
Throat was the number two member of the FBI caught up in the internal
swirl of politics.
I would suggest that 9/11 was not so much a failure of secret access
to our library records and to bookstores; but it was the fact that the
FBI did not know how to talk to itself, how to listen to people who
actually had information.
We do not need to extend this reach. We have tools available. The
problem that we have seen over and over again is that the Federal
Government has, in fact, abused the rights of American citizens,
including in the FBI.
I would suggest that rather than drag our bookstores and our
libraries into this ill-considered issue, that we would be far better
off to approve the Sanders amendment, which is a small step towards
sanity in this regard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act allows Federal agents to
look at public and university library, patron circulation records,
books checked out, magazines consulted, all subject to government
scrutiny.
There used to be a time in this country when we were worried whether
our young people knew how to read. Now some in our government are more
worried that government agents be able to find out what people are
reading.
This section that the Sanders amendment addresses gives the FBI the
power to search for any tangible thing, books, records, papers,
documents and other items, in a location without having to show
probable cause. The Sanders amendment would restore legal standards and
warrant procedures for investigations of libraries and bookstores which
were in place before the passage of the PATRIOT Act.
It is time for us to remember where we come from as a Nation. This
very Chamber we are standing in is dedicated to liberty, to freedom.
The things we see carved in stone and wood in this place are all about
freedom. Why do we not remember where we come from? Where we come from
is a Nation with a heritage of standing up for basic civil liberties,
for the first amendment, the right to assemble, the right to free
speech; and I say it is time to address it with the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time remains
on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for the time.
Mr. Chairman, Pericles, a 5th century B.C. Athenian statesman, once
said that ``freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the
courage to defend it.'' I rise today in support of this amendment and
to speak on behalf of freedom.

[[Page H4541]]

Librarians, booksellers, and everyday Americans across the country
are deeply concerned about the chilling effect of section 215 of the
PATRIOT Act, which clearly encourages individuals to self-censor their
reading sources.
USA Today in June of 2004 reported that an FBI agent actually went to
a Washington State library branch and requested a list of people who
had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. The librarian refused and
informed the agent that he would have to go through legal channels
before the names could be released. The FBI then served a subpoena to
the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed
the book since November of 2001.
With government having the ability to easily obtain records of books
that everyday Americans, our constituents, are borrowing, all of us
forfeit the freedom to learn more.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act clearly gives the Federal Government
an unwarranted amount of power. There must be a higher standard of
suspicion to justify this invasion of privacy.
This amendment only applies to the records that contain information
about the books and reading materials that are checked out of the
library or purchased from a bookstore.
It is important to note that prior to September 11, law enforcement
was able to arrest Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, via his library
records. The authority already existed in law without the secrecy and
overreach of section 215.
The adage ``keep your friends close and your enemies closer'' can be
upheld via the freedom to obtain knowledge about those who wish to do
us harm.
I urge my colleagues' support.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Sanders amendment, and this is after I opposed it last year; but I
learned two things since that vote that caused me to change my
position.
First of all, as has been emphasized by the opponent of this
amendment, section 215 has not yet been used by the Justice Department.
We hear that if we eliminate this provision, it will somehow jeopardize
our entire country and that we have been able to hold off the
terrorists for 4 years because of the PATRIOT Act. Yet they acknowledge
at the same time that section 215 has not even been used. So,
obviously, it is not critical to that effort.
The second reason is the reason this is very important. There is no
clear standard for when it can be used. If a person goes to a judge and
gets a subpoena by some standard, probable cause or some other
standard, then that makes sense. That is in fitting with the
Constitution. The problem with section 215 is that you go to the
Foreign Intelligence Services Act court and seek that warrant. It is a
secret court.
We do not know what the standard is. There should and must be a clear
standard before the Justice Department can seek this kind of
information from our citizens. If that clear standard were put in law,
that could change things; but there is no standard here, and this law
has not been used. So it is not critical, and it can potentially be
abused. So let us eliminate that potential and support the Sanders
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
In response to the gentleman from Washington, the PATRIOT Act under
215 has been used. It has been used 35 times. There have been 35
specific reports that have been presented to Congress. It has just not
been used in libraries.
This amendment is worse than previous law before the PATRIOT Act was
passed because this creates a sanctuary and the sanctuary is listed in
the Sanders amendment. It says library circulation records, library
patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. That will be
the place where we cannot investigate an international terrorist
investigation.
It establishes a sanctuary when there has not been a single case of
abuse, not a single individual that can be named. We have had 12 to 13
hearings. I have asked for those records to be presented to our
Committee on the Judiciary. The request has been made by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) as well. We have zero records
that have been offered, not a single name of an individual that has
been abused.
I would ask my colleagues, inform your constituents. Do not be
concerned about the fear, about the phobia of this abuse of civil
liberties, but send the message to your constituents that this has been
properly used. A report comes back to Congress. If there is an abuse,
we will deal with it. So we want to know about that abuse.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have? I have the
right to close; is that right, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 3 minutes
remaining and the right to close. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on this amendment. It is an incredibly important one, and I rise in
strong support of the Freedom to Read amendment which will restore the
privacy that our constituents expect and deserve.
We all agree that combating terrorism is the number one priority, but
it should not be done at the expense of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by our Constitution.
Many organizations support this, the librarians, the booksellers, the
publishers, many, many organizations, but very importantly, my
constituents. My constituents tell me that they feel that they cannot
go to the library anymore without feeling that the government is
looking over their shoulder.
So I ask my colleagues, what in the world do we gain if we deny basic
privacy rights to Americans in our efforts to combat terrorism?
This is a balanced amendment. Section 215 is far too broad, and it
has appropriate exemptions. It is an important amendment. I urge
bipartisan support for civil liberties, for privacy. Support the
Sanders amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Can I ask my friend how many speakers he has left.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will have 2 minutes, and I will have 1 minute.
If my math is right, we do have 3 minutes; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. What is the
difference that this amendment will make? The difference is between
good police work and fishing expeditions.
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 the
government needs this information, that the government suspects someone
is looking up how to make atomic bombs, then let the FBI go to a court
and get a search warrant or show probable cause and get a subpoena.
That is the American way. That is the way we have always done it.
The gentleman from Virginia says, well, we had an attack on 9/11.
Indeed, we did. In my district, 3,000 people were killed; and he says,
maybe, who knows, this power could be used to stop a future event. But
we can say that about anything.
Ours is a government of limited powers. That is what distinguishes us
from the Soviet Union or Communist China or any other tyranny; and
those powers must be limited so as to protect liberty, even in the face
of threats.
The gentleman says no instance of abuse has been shown. Well, sure,
because all of this is secret. No instance of abuse can be shown.
Mr. Chairman, the point of this amendment is that we need not
surrender fundamental liberty to protect ourselves from terrorism, and
we

[[Page H4542]]

should not; and this is why we should adopt this amendment. We can have
our protection. We must have our protection. We must also have our
liberty.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over, and the world is a
more dangerous place. It cannot be contain and react. It has to be
replaced by detect and prevent. We want to prevent a crime. There is a
serious problem of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or even
a serious conventional attack. You all seem to want to wait until the
crime is committed and then you can use your criminal law to get at it.
We want to detect and prevent it.
I have never felt more outraged in my heart as I listen to this
debate in 19 years. Do we not get it?
The issue with the Unabomber is he committed the crime. I say to the
gentlewoman from Florida, so we should wait till after he commits the
crime, then we can go into a library? I want to get the information
before. I want to know what that Unabomber knew, that treatise he knew
in that library in Montana which we got an act for.
I like this law better than the criminal law because you have got to
go to a court and the court has to keep the record. You want to just
say, in my judgment, that we will have a grand jury, and as soon as you
have a grand jury, the prosecutor almost at will can get this
information. He does not have to go to a court.
You are trying to give the impression that civil liberties are in
jeopardy. I say under this law they are protected, and then I say
something else. Public safety under this law is protected.

{time} 1630

I find it amazing that we want a free zone in a bookstore. I find it
amazing we want a free zone in a library. I find it amazing that
librarians would allow someone to come in for a crime, but for a
clandestine operation that might blow up New York City? Nope, do not go
there.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 1
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is supported by the American Library Association, the
American Booksellers Association. Seven States in America, Democrat and
Republican legislatures, have gone on record expressing serious
concerns about the PATRIOT Act. And hundreds of thousands of Americans,
hundreds of thousands, have written Members of Congress about this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, all of us and all Americans grieve the horror of 9/11
and the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens. And every Member of
this Congress is on record pledged to do everything he or she can to
defend the American people from another terrorist attack. We have spent
tens of billions of dollars, and we are prepared to spend more. But,
Mr. Chairman, the reason that conservatives and progressives and people
in between have come together is that we understand that what we are
talking about is freedom; is liberty; that we can fight terrorism, we
can defeat terrorism, we can protect the American people without
undermining the constitutional rights that men and women have fought
for, have died for, and that made us the greatest country on Earth.
Let us go forward defeating terrorism, but let us do it in a way that
makes us all proud, that protects the greatest document ever written,
the American Constitution. And that is what this amendment is about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, Hamas and Hezbollah and al Qaeda are opposed to
liberty.
The gentleman was wrong last year, because he has changed his
amendment from that. So he was wrong last year, so maybe he is wrong
this year.
We are at war, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said. Go
to the Pentagon and look at the monument, go to the World Trade Center.
Two of my children live in the district of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler), and I know that gentleman does not speak for them on this
issue.
When in doubt, do no harm. Be careful. The Justice Department made a
mistake on the Moussaoui. They did not look at what was in his
computer, and as a result of that mistake, we have paid a tremendous
price. And if we make a mistake here, we may pay another tremendous
price.
Please, vote ``no'' on the Sanders amendment and let the Committee on
the Judiciary deal with this.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, and which would help
restore the privacy and First Amendment rights of library and bookstore
patrons.
On the day that the PATRIOT Act passed this body, few Americans were
aware of some of the harmful provisions contained within it. Over the
course of the past few years, however, our constituents have learned
about some of its harmful provisions, and they are justifiably
concerned. Over 365 cities, towns, and counties in 43 States have
passed resolutions expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act or an
extension of it. In my home State of New Mexico alone, ten cities and
four counties have passed resolutions.
Section 215 granted authorities unprecedented powers to search, or
order the search of library and bookstore records without probable
cause or the need for search warrants. Because these surveillance
powers were cast so broadly and the law prohibits them from revealing
to the subject that an investigation is occurring, librarians,
storeowners and operators are left in an impossible position. As a
former State attorney general, I fully understand the need, and support
swift justice for criminals and terrorists. Every member of this body
does. But I also believe that we can be both safe and free.
This common sense amendment before us would prohibit the expenditure
of funds for the implementation of these questionable searches. It
would protect our citizens' rights to read, learn and purchase books
without undue government influence. At the same time, it would maintain
established formal procedures that allow law enforcement agencies to
obtain warrants and receive records from libraries and bookstores for
terrorist-related or criminal investigations. And it is important to
note that this amendment does not exclude funding for library internet
records.
The opponents of this amendment argue that those of us who are
concerned about it are making up far-fetched scenarios to drum up
opposition. But it doesn't take fiction to do that. Take this example:
When a patron at a public library in Whatcom County, Washington
discovered a handwritten note quoting Osama bin Laden in the margin of
a biography of Osama bin Laden, the patron contacted the FBI. Citing
powers given by the PATRIOT Act, the FBI confiscated the original book
and served the library with a grand jury subpoena, and demanded the
names and addresses of everyone who had checked out the book. The
library refused, filing a motion to deny the subpoena. The FBI
withdrew, but reserved the right to issue the subpoena in the future.
If the library had told anyone that they had been subpoenaed, they
would have been violating the PATRIOT Act's gag order.
Our concerns are not make believe. Our founders understood the value
of open access to knowledge. I think we would all agree that one of the
measures of a great democracy is the ability of ordinary citizens to
explore ideas without government interference. I believe that this
amendment is a positive step towards restoring some of our personal
freedoms.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to allow a full and fair vote on
this amendment. My colleagues will recall that during a vote on this
same amendment during consideration of the fiscal year 2005 CJS
Appropriations bill, the majority held open the vote on the Sanders
amendment twice as long as scheduled to ensure its demise. This,
despite the strong and audible support of Americans to pass this common
sense amendment.
I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this important
amendment, as well as the amendment's other cosponsors, and I urge my
colleagues to support its passage.
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.

[[Page H4543]]

Amendment No. 28 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. 28 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. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, 2005,
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, and I first want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to
bring this amendment forward. I want to thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his extraordinary work on this entire bill. I
want to remark that his persistence here on the floor yesterday, today,
and quite likely tomorrow has been a long marathon, and he has
maintained his composure, his intellect, and his judgment.
I bring before the Congress, Mr. Chairman, an amendment that seeks to
upgrade this good appropriations bill that we have on Justice, and it
recognizes that there is a Federal law today that prohibits sanctuary
policies. Presently many cities have been enacting sanctuary policies
which prohibit local police from asking about a person's immigration
status or reporting illegal aliens who commit crimes to immigration
authorities for deportation.
The law I am referring to was passed in 1996, and it is called the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. It
forbids localities from preventing their police officers from asking or
reporting immigration information to the Federal Government. The
existing Federal law says, and I quote, ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local
government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict
any government entity or official from sending to or receiving
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of any individual.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, despite this ban, some cities continue to prohibit
their officers from asking about immigration status or providing
information to the Federal Government. Make no mistake, this is a
situation of local governments blatantly violating Federal law. As a
result, U.S. taxpayers pay to incarcerate illegal alien prisoners who
are later released back onto the streets.
Sanctuary policies tie the hands of local law enforcement officers
and keep illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country from being
deported according to U.S. law. These sanctuary policies have
disastrous consequences. A case in point, a tragic case in point, was
the issue regarding a Denver police officer, Donnie Young, who was
assassinated in cold blood about a month ago. The suspect in the case,
Raul Garcia-Gomez, was an illegal alien, who has since fled to Mexico.
He has since then actually been arrested in Mexico.
But Denver has an illegal alien sanctuary policy, and it is based
upon the mayor's executive order. The current mayor, by the way, is a
successor mayor to the executive order, but it is still his executive
order, and he could rescind that executive order. The mayor happened to
also own at least a part interest in the restaurant where this illegal
alien worked. They had gotten a letter from the Social Security
Administration saying that this Social Security number you sent on this
individual does not match the individual.
But the individual continued working at the restaurant. He had
sanctuary there. He was picked up three times on the streets of Denver.
He offered no driver's license one time, a Mexican driver's license at
least one other time, and no insurance card on another occasion. Each
time he was allowed to drive away. There were at least four different
opportunities for that community to enforce the laws and take action
against this illegal alien, and each time he has been shielded by the
sanctuary policy that is a direct violation of Federal law.
Last month we passed an amendment that will provide the necessary
resources and training to State and local governments so that they will
be more willing and better prepared to work with the Federal Government
and to protect our Nation's citizens. Even with the proper training,
though, law enforcement officials cannot help in this area if they are
forbidden from doing so.
My amendment today would provide funding for the Department of
Justice to enforce the law as it presently exists. It does not enact
any new law. It does not promote a new policy. I want to repeat, it
simply provides funding to see that our current law is enforced.
Our State and local governments serve as the front line of defense
against terrorism and criminal aliens. Every murder, every rape, every
violent gang crime committed against Americans by illegal aliens is an
utterly preventable crime. If we better enforce our immigration laws to
keep criminals out, we will save lives. We must use the law enforcement
resources that we have to enforce our laws, with the end result of
making our Nation a safer place for our children and grandchildren to
grow up in.
This amendment simply directs $1 million of the $600-and-several
million in this appropriations process to that enforcement of the
existing Federal law. It is an issue that we raised last year as well.
It is an issue I know the Chairman is very much concerned about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to claim time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 801. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to issue a national security letter, for health
insurance records, under any of the provisions of law amended
by section 505 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to issue
national security letters to health insurance companies under the
provisions of section 505 of the PATRIOT Act.
Currently, any FBI field office director is authorized to issue
secret national security letters to insurance providers without any
judicial approval, not even a FISA court. These NSLs open the door to a
secret seizure of highly personal medical information. The FBI, if this
amendment passes, will still be able to get all these records because
they have so many other tools available to them, which I will describe
in a moment.
Almost limitless sensitive private information from health insurance
companies, including medical records, can be collected secretly by
simply issuing a national security letter under section 505 on an FBI
field director's own assertion that the request is merely relevant to a
national security investigation. These private health insurance records
can be demanded without any court review or approval, not even a FISA
court.

[[Page H4544]]

Worse yet, the target of the NSL will never know that his health
records were inspected by government agents, because health insurance
companies are barred by law from telling him or anyone else that the
records were demanded.
Government officials already have access to so much of our personal
information, such as credit reports, library use, and telephone
communications. Do we want the government to keep files detailing our
personal lifestyles as revealed by our medical histories, psychiatric
profiles, lab studies, and diagnostic tests like CAT scans or MRIs?
Why does the FBI need access to health records? How is this
information pertinent to a terrorist investigation? If somehow your
medical records are, in fact, relevant to a terrorist investigation,
the government should be required to explain to a judge, in a secret
FISA court if need be, why that is, instead of simply allowing an FBI
field agent to demand those records in secret.
In any criminal investigation the FBI can obtain a search warrant for
documents or other tangible things if there is a judicial finding of
probable cause that a crime has been or will be committed. The FBI can
use grand jury subpoenas issued under the supervision of a judge and
the U.S. Attorney. And in international terrorism cases, such as we are
talking here, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain business
records, including medical records, under section 215, which we
discussed a few moments ago.
Given these existing powers, there is no reason to authorize the FBI
to issue unchecked and reviewable national security letters demanding
personal medical records.
I am not seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act. This amendment seeks only
to modify the application of one provision that poses a serious
potential to abuse. Through this very narrow amendment we can provide
checks and balances with regard to our sensitive medical records.
However, since I was greatly restricted by the House rules, this
amendment does not fully address all the problems created by section
505 and national security letters. I am hopeful I can work with the
Committee on the Judiciary to address these problems more completely.
This amendment addresses only the health insurance provider's records;
not bank records, not credit company records, not credit bureau
records, not car dealerships. But when it comes to health insurance,
what terrorist has health insurance? The problem is that most, but not
all, innocent Americans do have health insurance, and the FBI should
not have easy access to this information, at least not without telling
a judge why he needs this.
I have also introduced, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), a stand-alone bill to address more fully the issues presented
by section 505.
In Doe v. Ashcroft, the New York Federal District Court struck down
this section on the grounds that it violates free speech rights under
the first amendment, as well as the right to be free from unreasonable
searches under the fourth amendment.
We can all agree that giving the FBI access to our most intimate
private information is too great an intrusion of privacy to leave
unlimited and unsupervised. We can be both safe and free. And if the
FBI thinks that for a terrorist investigation it needs access to
private medical records, let them at least show to a judge, in a secret
FISA court, under section 215, which we did not take the power away
from them to do, why that is relevant to an ongoing terrorist
investigation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The Committee on the Judiciary
has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing
devoted just to national security letters.
We saw this amendment for the first time Monday night. It is unclear
to me why health insurance records are different than any other
records. We do not know how this amendment would impact a
counterterrorism investigation. We just do not know. And here we are
with 7\1/2\ minutes on each side. What is this? This is no way to
protect the country.
I could never support 7\1/2\ minutes. And I do not care if it is just
the naming of some government building somewhere. So I strongly urge
Members to vote ``no'' on this. Seven-and-a-half minutes? We cannot do
it. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Feeney).

{time} 1645

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) yielding me this time, and he is exactly right. The
Committee on the Judiciary has had no less than 10 hearings on the
PATRIOT Act, including one specifically devoted to national security
letters.
This may be an issue as we move forward on the process to find a way
to reform or modify, but there have been no abuses. This is a solution
in search of a problem. The fact of the matter is these types of
subpoenas are already available to investigate insurance fraud or bad
doctors. If we can use these subpoenas to find bad doctors taking
advantage of the Medicare or the Medicaid system, why can we not use
these subpoenas to track down a terrorist? We are not talking about
medical personal records of anybody. We are talking about financial
records.
Let us say theoretically, since there have been no abuses, let us say
hypothetically al-Zawahiri was injured and sought medical attention. We
could potentially track down the financing to locate him.
Let us suppose we had a known terrorist here in the United States
that underwent plastic surgery to change his or her identity. We could
track down the financial records to possibly intercept that.
These subpoenas have been used since 1996 under the Clinton
administration as a tool for health care fraud investigations. If we
can use these appropriately under the proper circumstances to find bad
doctors, surely a national security letter can be used to track down
evil terrorists.
I do not think this is a widespread tool being used on a regular
basis, but there may come a time when we rue the day that we have taken
away one more law enforcement tool to track down the bad guys.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there are no abuses we know of because they
are all secret and they cannot tell us about abuses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler
amendment to prohibit the release of medical records under section 505
of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was drafted in a rush to respond to
a perceived need of new law enforcement powers immediately after 9/11.
As such, the law must be considered a work in progress at best.
Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes FBI field office directors
to collect in secret almost limitless sensitive personal information,
including medical records from health insurance companies. This is done
without court review or approval. This is a major invasion into the
right to privacy. We must draw the line at this invasion into our
personal lives.
This critical Nadler amendment provides crucial checks and
safeguards. Records held by health insurance companies may include
laboratory tests, medications prescribed, the results of operations and
other medical procedures. The FBI has no business examining America's
health records without a court order.
I believe it is a rare occurrence that the FBI would truly need
access to health insurance records. For the most part, such information
is not pertinent to a terrorist investigation. There is a better way.
If the FBI did have a real need for such records, the FBI could simply
use other legal mechanisms to gain access, and those options include
judicial review and thus protection of privacy.
Protection of our personal privacy is a basic and fundamental
responsibility of this Congress, and that is why the Nadler amendment
elevates the condition of this Congress to where we can be in the
defense of the right to privacy. Support the Nadler amendment. Support
the right to privacy.

[[Page H4545]]

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for the opportunity to say a few words with regard to the
Nadler amendment, an amendment that would prohibit the use of national
security letters to get medical reports of all kinds. That would also
include insurance company records which qualify as financial
institutions.
We have another amendment on the floor of this Congress which
qualifies as a sanctuary amendment. It carves out another region that
terrorists then would know that they can go ahead and go in and operate
on without fear of government intervention or government investigation.
In fact, there is a significant case. Suspects have bought bulk
amounts of Cipro, which is the antidote for anthrax. That may be an
indicator of a dirty bomb or a series of dirty bombs that could be set
up and staged and the perpetrators would want to have the antidote.
Could that also be the case for smallpox?
These kinds of indicators need to be available to our investigators.
This creation of this fear of Big Brother, this relentless attack on
the PATRIOT Act without substance is causing concern amongst the
citizens. I have civil libertarian instincts within me, but I have come
to the conclusion that we are far safer, the requirement that these
reports come back to Congress and we review those reports, we are far
safer that way than we are erring on the side of liberty safety without
merit on the other side.
I think it is important that we put protections in the PATRIOT Act.
The standards that have been there before with criminal investigations
are higher for the PATRIOT Act, not lower. We did not expand any access
into information to speak of. We made a high standard. That high
standard is held and it is maintained, and the records come back before
Congress without a single case of abuse; but we want to carve out
another sanctuary for another issue here to placate some people who
have been caused to have fear of the PATRIOT Act by a propaganda
campaign across America.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not carve out a sanctuary as the
gentleman says, nor do they report to Congress. They report to Congress
on other things, but on section 505 they report nothing. We get no
information.
All this amendment says is if the FBI thinks that your personal
medical records, and that is all we are talking about, the medical
records from the medical insurance company, are relevant to a terrorist
investigation, they go to a judge and tell him and he says yes. They
can even go to a FISA court judge in a secret proceeding.
Also, we were told they can get these records by administrative
proceedings on other subjects. On other subjects they get the
proceedings, they ask you for the records about yourself, and you can
move to quash it. You can challenge it. They do not go to the insurance
company and say give me the records about him under administrative
subpoenas.
Under this section, the government can go, the FBI can go to the
insurance company and get your personal medical records without even
telling any judge, even in a secret proceeding, why it is necessary.
All this amendment says is if they want your personal medical records,
they have to tell a judge why it is relevant, in secret, why it is
relevant to a terrorist investigation. They do not have to not get the
records, but they have to tell a judge why it is relevant, and the
judge can say it is relevant.
That is the minimal standard we should insist on for liberty. Indeed,
in other amendments we say it is not good enough, and I agree. But in
this amendment, that is all we are asking. For personal medical
records, if the government wants to rummage through your personal
medical records, they should have to say to a judge in a FISA court in
a secret proceeding why they think it is relevant to an investigation.
Not why there is probable cause, but why it is relevant. It is a very
low standard, and if the government cannot meet that standard, they
should not have your personal medical record information.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a former attorney
general.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, let us understand
first what we are talking about here. We are talking about national
security letters, NSLs. They are administrative subpoenas that can be
used in international counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence
investigations, not even domestic terrorist investigations. So we are
limited to that category.
Secondly, some of the statements that have been made here are
questionable in terms of their conclusions, that is, that there is no
reporting to Congress. As a matter of fact, NSLs are reported to our
intelligence committees, both the House and the Senate. Obviously, not
all Members are on those committees, but it is my information that
Members can go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
examine the documents presented by the Department of Justice in this
regard.
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of administrative subpoenas
where the demand is definite and the information sought is relevant. As
with other types of subpoenas, the national security letter is a
request for information and is not self-executing. In fact, they cannot
enforce it. If the recipient refuses to accept the request for
information, there is no enforcement mechanism. The FBI would have to
obtain an enforcement order from a Federal court, not an NSL.
In fact, the Justice Department has argued both in and out of court
that the current law allows for a recipient to obtain preenforcement
judicial review of an NSL. As a matter of fact, some of us working on
this on the Committee on the Judiciary believe that information ought
to be presented to the recipient. They ought to be notified ahead of
time, and that is one of the things we ought to be working on.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, a NSL, unlike an administrative subpoena,
is not the target of the inquiry and has no interest in contesting or
refusing it.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what
the gentleman is saying. It is a third party. There is no doubt about
it.
In some cases it is essential to be able to get that information if
you are involving yourself in a counterterrorism investigation
precisely because you do not want those people to know you are going
after that. But the recipient of the letter has the ability to refuse
to give that to the authorities.
The idea that somehow we have such an abuse of these letters flies in
the face of any presentation we have had from the committees of
jurisdiction, that is, the Intelligence Committees of the House and the
Senate. There has been no report to us that there has been an abuse.
I think those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can work on
this if we want to refine it more, if we want to make sure that there
is an affirmative presentation to the recipient to let them know they
do not have to comply, if there are some sort of other protections we
want to wrap around it.
But I also think it is wrong for us to try to do it in this
particular venue, and especially when we have a definition of all
health records. That goes beyond just personal records. The gentleman's
definition is much broader than that in terms of the whole health
industry, the whole health insurance industry.
I suggest this is a precipitous action by this body, and I would ask
Members to vote down the gentleman's amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment authored by the Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, to the
Commerce-Justice-State-Science Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2006.
His proposal is simple but carriers tremendous weight in terms of
protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals who live in this
nation. it withholds funds from government action to issue a national
security letter (NSL)

[[Page H4546]]

for the purpose of obtaining health insurance records under any
provisions amended by Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act.
Currently, under Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI is
authorized to issue self-authorized secret national security letters to
insurance providers, which opens the door to he secret seizure of
highly personal medical information.
Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes FBI field office directors
to collect, in secret, almost limitless sensitive personal information,
including medical records, from health insurance companies that are not
under investigation themselves but have customers whose records the
government wants by simply issuing a ``national security letter''
carrying the weight of law on the FBI's own assertion that the request
is relevant to a national security investigation.
This unfettered access to information that has been held to be
Constitutionally protected since the passage of the Bill of Rights
must be checked, and the Nadler Amendment provides that check in the
context of fulfilling funding requests for the Department of Justice.
Not only is the scope of the searchable material under this provision
unconstitutional but the prohibition on notice to the individual
searched contravenes the notions of privacy that have formed the
foundation of our fundamental freedoms.

Records held by health insurance companies about their customers must
be turned over regardless of whether they concern financial matters,
because ``financial records'' are defined as ``any record held by a
financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with that
institution.'' The records sought may include laboratory test results,
medications prescribed, and reports that indicate the results of
operations and other medical procedures. This kind of authority might
well be described as ``terroristic'' to Americans in and of itself.
The existence of alternative ways of accessing this kind of
information with grand jury subpoenas and orders issuing under Section
215 justify offering this important amendment. This section allows the
FBI to obtain virtually any business record simply by asserting the
information is ``relevant'' to a national security investigation. It
can be used to obtain records of individuals who are not suspected or
accused of any crime.
Citing Section 215, the government may, unbeknownst to the suspected
person, secretly obtain employment, medical, and financial records,
membership lists, and even a key to one's office. The only oversight is
an annual report to Congress of the number of warrants issued.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in the limited oversight that the
House Judiciary Committee has begun. On Friday, June 10, 2005, the
manner in which the Committee Majority Leadership conducted that
hearing is only indicative of the manner in which the highly
controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been foisted upon the
American people. I support the Gentleman's amendment and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Stearns:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following title:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental
of any new headquarters for the United Nations in New York
City or any other location in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is more symbolic than it is substantive. It is really
giving an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle who feel
frustrated with the increased cost for things that happen around here.
We know that we start out with a project that costs $40 million, and it
ends up costing $550 million, and I am talking about the tourist center
right outside the Capitol. We saw what happened in Boston with the Big
Dig.
Basically, my amendment says before we give any money to the United
Nations, $1.2 billion, that we should have a study. We should have a
GAO audit. We should have some kind of reference put down before they
go out and spend this money.

{time} 1700

The U.N. wants to spend $1.2 billion in renovating the New York City
United Nations headquarters. Then they want to spend $650 million to
house the organization in the meantime for rental purposes or existing
office space in Manhattan and elsewhere, so we are roughly up to $1.8
billion. It could be $2 billion. It could be $3 billion. I think before
we allow the United Nations to spend any of this money, why do we not
have a GAO audit, or why do we not at the very least impanel a panel to
determine how they are going to spend this money? Because we know the
rental price of real estate in New York, it costs a lot of money. It
keeps going up every year. There is no doubt that the estimate that the
U.N. gave of $1.2 billion and roughly $650 million to relocate while
they renovate is very small. These initial financial estimates probably
are not accurate. As I mentioned earlier, look at the Big Dig in
Boston, the money we put up there, it is still going on. It is just a
total overrun.
I just urge my colleagues to look at this, not so much as substantive
because the money was appropriated. It was in last year's bill. This is
basically saying, before we go ahead and give this money, we should
tell the United Nations, give us a plan, let us have an opportunity to
review the cost before you go ahead, and then we can look at it more
carefully.
This is not an amendment that is against the United Nations. It is
just an amendment asking for some kind of fiscal responsibility by
these people before they spend the money.
The amendment that I am offering today proposed a very simple goal.
It merely states that none of the funds made available in this act
shall be used to renovate and modernize the U.N. headquarters in New
York City.
As we all know, the United States already pays roughly 22% of all
U.N. expenses. We do so despite the fact that the U.N. often goes
against American values and American interests.
Now the U.N. is planning a $1.2 billion renovation of its New York
City headquarters. They are also considering either the construction of
a new building costing $650 million to house the organization in the
meantime, or the rental of existing office space in Manhattan or
elsewhere in the city. No doubt this rental of prime real estate will
also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So we are talking a
renovation costing approximately $2 billion, at least.
I say ``at least'' because these are just the initial financial
estimates, and there's a good chance the costs will increase
substantially, as these projects often do.
Just look at the Big Dig in Boston, or even the Capitol visiting
center, to see projects that were only expected to cost a billion or
two, but have since far exceeded their initial cost expectations.
I'd like to note that even though Congress voted last year to offer a
$1.2 billion loan to the U.N. for the purpose of renovation, several
member countries complained that we charged interest on the loan, a
modest 5.5%. As such, the U.N. General Assembly has not yet accepted
the loan and its conditions, so it is possible that may find different
financing. Either way, American taypayers will end up paying the lion's
share of this renovation.
Mr. Chairman, there are serious questions about the costs of this
renovation project. It is considered wasteful by Donald Trump, who,
whatever his faults, knows a thing or two about real estate in New York
City.
``The United Nations is a mess,'' said Trump recently, ``and they're
spending hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this
project.''
In fact, according to published reports, Mr. Trump recently met with
Kofi Annan and offered to manage the renovation of the U.N. building
for the much lower total of $500 million, yet he never received a
response from the U.N.
Several other real estate experts have concluded that renovations in
New York City should cost a fraction of what the U.N. is claiming is
necessary to fix their buildings.
I submit these press accounts detailing the opposition of New York
City real estate developers for the record.

[[Page H4547]]

If these real estate experts are right, then it appears that hundreds
of millions of dollars may be unaccounted for, either through
incompetence or corruption.
We are still trying to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal,
in which $20 billion in U.N. funds were also somehow ``lost.'' The U.N.
does not have the best track record for competent and legitimate
spending.
Mr. Chairman, there are obviously serious questions about the U.N.'s
renovation project, which, along with their plans for temporary
housing, will cost close to $2 billion.
The questions involved with this renovation project are not dealt
with in Chairman Hyde's bill, in the Gingrich-Mitchell report.
This amendment is not an anti-U.N. amendment. What this amendment is
attempting to do is make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent
wisely. We need to make sure that this renovation project is being run
in a transparent and cost-effective fashion.
If we waste hundreds of millions of dollars on this renovation,
that's money that won't be able to go toward peace and humanitarian
efforts.
So what this amendment will do is tell the U.N. that we will have no
part of financing this renovation until we see some sort of action
taken to ensure that there is financial accountability.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support
financial accountability.

[From the Weekly Standard, May 16, 2005]

Trouble At Turtle Bay

(By John Hinderaker)

The United Nations has been in the news of late. As usual,
most of the news is negative: evidence suggesting that one or
more members of the Security Council were bribed by Saddam;
an inability to deal effectively with various crises in
Africa; the embarrassing presence of nations such as Iran,
Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, and Saddam's Iraq on U.N. commissions
on human rights, proliferation and weapons of mass
destruction; the oil for food scandal.
In the midst of these controversies, the United Nations is
proceeding with plans to upgrade its Manhattan headquarters.
The organization's headquarters at Turtle Bay were completed
in 1950 and renovated in the 1970s. The United Nations now
believes that another renovation project is necessary, and
has prepared a $1.2 billion plan to carry out the work.
While the construction is underway, the organization will
need to be housed elsewhere. In its original form, the U.N.
plan included construction of a new, 35-story building over
Robert Moses Playground, a park near Turtle Bay, at a cost of
an additional $650 million. This new building was slated to
be the U.N.'s home during the renovation project, and to
continue in use by the organization thereafter.
It was the construction of this new building--for which
approval by the New York legislature was required--that first
drew public criticism of the project. Bipartisan opposition
to the new building stalled legislative action in the New
York Senate. With no sign that senators opposing the project
would relent, Kofi Annan, on May 10, issued a statement
urging the United Nations to abandon its plan for the new
building, on the ground that it could not now be completed in
time for its projected use as a temporary home. Instead, the
United Nations will look for existing office space elsewhere
in Manhattan.
There has been little debate over the broader issue of the
renovation project itself, perhaps because so few people are
aware of it. Establishment figures such as Colin Powell, Ed
Koch, and Mortimer Zuckerman have been enlisted to head a
committee to lobby for the project. With the notable
exception of the New York Sun, however, the press has been
virtually silent. This seems odd, in view of the serious
questions that have been raised about the cost of the
renovation.
The U.N.'s Capital Master Plan states that a total of
2,651,000 square feet will be renovated. Assuming that figure
to be correct, the per square foot cost would be $452. But,
as reported by the Sun, real estate experts question whether
the U.N.'s facilities contain anywhere near that amount of
space. According to the U.N.'s web site, the organization's
headquarters include four main structures, whose size has
been estimated as follows:
Secretariat Building: 39 floors and three subfloors,
approximately 500,000 square feet.
General Assembly Building: Five total floors, approximately
380 ft. by 160 ft., or 304,000 square feet.
Conference Building: Four stories, approximately 115,000
square feet.
Dag Hummarskjold Library: Four stories and two sublevels,
219 ft. by 84 ft., total 110,376 square feet.
If these estimates are correct, only around 1,029,000
square feet will be renovated under the U.N.'s proposal. At a
total cost of $1.2 billion, the project would then weigh in
at over $1,100 per square foot.
Either of these figures is regarded by local real estate
developers as stunning. The New York Sun reported on February
4, 2005:
The United Nations has said its plans to renovate its
headquarters at Turtle Bay will cost $1.2 billion.
That strikes Donald Trump as far too much. ``The United
Nations is a mess,'' the developers said yesterday, ``and
they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars
unnecessarily on this project.''
And he's not the only one. Several Manhattan real-estate
experts told The New York Sun this week that renovating
premium office space should cost a fraction, on a per-square-
foot basis, of what U.N. officials expect to pay.
An executive managing director at the commercial real-
estate firm Julien J. Studley Inc., Woody Heller, said a
thorough renovation of an office building would probably cost
between $85 and $160 per square foot.
An executive vice president at Newmark, Scott Panzer, said
renovation prices could range between $120 and $200 per
square foot. Mr. Panzer, who works with many corporations to
redevelop their buildings for future efficiency and energy
cost savings, put a price of $70 to $100 per square foot on
infrastructure upgrades. Those would include heating;
ventilation; air conditioning; replacing the central plant;
fenestration (specifically, switching from single-pane to
thermal-pane windows); upgrading elevator switch gears,
mechanicals, and vertical transportation; improving air
quality, and making security upgrades. On top of that amount,
another $50 to $100 per square foot would take care of the
inside office improvements.
The chairman of global brokerage at commercial real-estate
firm CB Richard Elis, Stephen Siegel, said high-end
commercial renovation usually runs $50 to $100 per square
foot. For a renovation that does not include new furniture--
according to the 2002 Capital Master Plan, the United
Nations' will not--but does provide for improved heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment, as well as work
on the building exterior, the cost would be closer to the
$100 end of the range, Mr. Siegel said. Even accounting
generously for upgrades that might be peculiar to the United
Nations, Mr. Siegel added, he would set $250 per square foot
as the absolute maximum.
I would appear, then, that hundreds of millions of dollars
are unaccounted for, even on the most generous assumptions.
Trump has gone further, expressing the view that the
expenses projected by the U.N. can only be the result of
graft or incompetence. In a speech on the Senate floor on
April 6, 2005, Senator Jeff Sessions recounted his
conversation with Trump:
Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking
to me. The $1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to
renovate a building. Some member of the United Nations, a
delegate, apparently, from Europe, had read in the newspaper
in New York that Mr. Donald Trump . . . had just completed
The Trump World Tower--not a 30-story building like the
United Nations, but a 90-story building, for a mere $350
million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European
United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion
they were spending on the United Nations. He knew he didn't
know what the real estate costs are in New York. So, he
called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him
that building he built for $350 million was the top of the
line. It has the highest quality of anything you would need
in it. They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made
for Mr. Trump to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to
discuss the concerns. . . . So according to Mr. Trump, who I
talked to personally this morning, they go meet with Mr.
Annan, who had asked some staff member to be there. . . .
When the European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr.
Trump said the only way would be because of incompetence, or
fraud. That is how strongly he felt about this price tag
because he pointed out to me that renovation costs much less
than building an entirely new building. So he has a meeting
with Mr. Annan, and they have some discussion. And Mr. Trump
says these figures can't be acceptable. He told me in my
conversation this morning, he said: You can quote me. You can
say what I am saying. He said they don't know. The person who
had been working on this project for 4 years couldn't answer
basic questions about what was involved in renovating a major
building. He was not capable nor competent to do the job. He
went and worked on it, and talked about it, and eventually
made an offer. He said he would manage the refurbishment, the
renovation, of the United Nations Building, and he would not
charge personally for his fee in managing it. He would bring
it in at $500 [million], less than half of what they were
expecting to spend, and it would be better. . . . Yet he
never received a response from the United Nations.
It appears there are serious questions about the U.N.'s
renovation project. Depending on which assumptions one
accepts about cost and square footage, anywhere from $500
million to $1 billion in expense is unaccounted for. Given
the U.N.'s history, is there any reason to doubt that the
costs projected by that organization include substantial sums
representing, as Trump put it, incompetence or fraud? Given
what we know about the oil-for-food program, is there any
reason to trust the U.N.'s business or accounting practices?
American taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing
the answers to these question. The renovation is to be
financed by a low-interest, 30-year, $1.2 billion loan from
the U.S. government. (Kofi Annan's original request for an
interest-free loan was turned down.) And, of course, the loan
will then be repaid largely by American taxpayers, who foot a
little over 20 percent of the U.N.'s bills.

[[Page H4548]]

A few congressmen and senators have finally begun to ask
whether the U.N. building project is a boondoggle. It's about
time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I think the
gentleman makes some decent points. There were the Gingrich-Mitchell
recommendations which have been made. The gentleman said that he would
withdraw the amendment if we got a GAO study. I think we ought to look
at this thing. I think that the committee will ask the GAO to do a
study to look at the cost and make sure. It is hard to argue against
the gentleman for wanting a study because we now know, and being the
author of that task force, that the U.N. failed on the Oil-for-Food
program. I think it makes sense.
With that, I will pledge and I will wait to hear what the gentleman
from West Virginia says, but we will ask the GAO for a study to look at
these things.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is my understanding
that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment upon an understanding
that the chairman, who I would support, would encourage a GAO study?
Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will yield, I will. I am reluctant to
do it, but I would.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then I agree to proceed in that manner.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me just complete my presentation, then. I will be
glad to withdraw it as long as I get the confirmation that there will
be a GAO study before these moneys are issued.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. With that representation, I will not oppose the
gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
These are serious questions when you spend $1.2 billion. Obviously we
are going to pay one-fourth of this. At the very least, with all this
kind of waste we have seen and fraud in some of these estimates around
here, it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to have some kind of control
over this. We are just trying to make sure that American taxpayers'
dollars are used wisely, and that the renovation project is being run
in a transparent and cost-effective manner, and, in fact, when these
employees go to other places to live while they do the renovation, that
they do not waste hundreds of millions of dollars in doing so.
I think the United Nations has had several offers from developers in
town, in New York City, to say we will do this for one-third of the
cost. I think the United Nations has to tell us, if you are going ahead
with this project, we have got to have assurance that there is going to
be a fixed-cost basis on this contract and not procurement on a cost-
plus fee basis or cost-plus-plus basis. These are the kind of contracts
that just roll out of pocket. We need to tell the United Nations that
they have to be accountable and provide good financial accountability,
not just for United States dollars, but also for all the dollars.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC) is a private nonprofit, federally funded corporation that helps
provide legal assistance to low-income people in civil matters. When
the LSC was first established, its initial goal was to provide all low-
income people with at least minimum access to legal services, defined
as the equivalent of two legal services attorneys for every 10,000 poor
people. This goal was achieved briefly in FY 1980 but not maintained
due to inflation and subsequent budget cuts.
Legal services provided through LSC funds are available only in civil
matters to individuals with incomes less than 125% of the federal
poverty guidelines. The LSC places primary focus on cases that deal
with family related issues like divorce, separation, child custody,
support, adoption, spousal abuse, child abuse or neglect, evictions,
foreclosures, access to health care, debt collection, employment,
health and education. Most cases are resolved outside the courtroom via
legal advice and telephone calls by attorneys. This is a very cost-
effective approach to settling legal matters.
I opposed Representative Stearns amendment to reduce the Legal
Services Corporation FY2006 appropriations allocation by $10 million.
The LSC is already underfunded to provide low-income people with
adequate and necessary resources to solve their legal matters.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8__. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to deny the production of safety reports regarding
the NASA Space Shuttle program and the International Space
Station.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very clear and straightforward. None
of the funds made available in this act may be used to deny the
production of safety reports regarding the NASA space shuttle program
and the international space station. To the credit of NASA and to the
credit of the members of the House Science Committee, we have joined
together along with the Senate and been diligent and steadfast as it
relates to safety issues in the human space shuttle and international
space station.
Those of us who come from the region that I come from and have as our
neighbor the Johnson Space Center have lived through Challenger and
then Columbia. These are our neighbors, our friends, and certainly the
families are families that we care for. In fact, so many of the names
are household names to us because, as I said, they are our neighbors.
This amendment simply reinforces the importance of safety and safety
reports as it relates to the human space shuttle and the international
space station. Just recently NASA was able to report that 3 out of the
15 safety requirements that were recommended by the Columbia report
have now been completed. At the same time, the international space
station is making steadfast but slow progress in securing that
facility. Over the last couple of months, we have seen article after
article about air quality and a number of other concerns that will
require our oversight.
This amendment wants to reinforce the fact that we are committed to
exploration in space, but likewise, we are committed to safety. One of
the issues that was very important during the time of Columbia and the
review that occurred, one, to put forward the most effective and
efficient commission that we could, and the Gehman Commission did an
outstanding job; but, two, to ensure that we retained skilled workers.
I am very gratified to note that language in this legislation
indicates that if a worker is trained along the line of safety skills,
then their work position should certainly be protected, or there should
be some reason for their termination if that occurs.
This amendment is to focus us again on the fact that if we are
recommitting ourselves to the vision of Mars, the vision of
exploration, then we should commit ourselves to the safety of the
personnel who are engaged, the safety of those who reside on the
international space station, the safety of those who will travel.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that in reviewing the articles that I
have seen over the last couple of weeks listing and reviewing reports,
we note that we have just discovered that the potential for falling
debris can be as threatening to the human space shuttle as it was 3, 4,
5, 6 years ago. That is a safety question. No manner of reports or
study are too much to determine that safety.

[[Page H4549]]

This amendment, as I said, is straightforward. I ask my colleagues to
support it, which is to emphasize the importance of safety reports and
review by NASA to ensure that whatever we do, it be done safely,
protecting the lives of Americans who are willing to go forward and
explore space on our behalf.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for
their hard work in making the conduct of this floor consideration a
bipartisan experience thus far, and I thank them for making the
Jackson-Lee amendment in order. This amendment, designated as ``Jackso
110,'' seeks to preclude funds that in any way obstruct or otherwise
hinder the production of safety reports as to the NASA Space Shuttle
program and the International Space Station.
As a member of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics as well as a Representative of the 18th Congressional
District, home of the Johnson Space Center, which is where astronaut
training and Mission Control take place. The safety of our space
missions is paramount, and this is the impetus behind the Jackson-Lee
amendment. I offered this important amendment with the upcoming launch
of Space Shuttle Discovery next month for International Space Station
Flight LF1 in mind. During this mission, new inspection and repair
techniques will be implemented; therefore, it is important that full
reporting remain unimpeded.
In the past, I have introduced legislation that would provide for the
establishment of an independent, Presidentially appointed Commission to
assess the safety of the International Space Station and its crew, H.R.
4522 in the 108th Congress. The Jackson-Lee amendment is consistent
with the spirit of this legislation by preserving the oversight and
reporting functions that are in place.
Since the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident safety must be our
number one priority. I am working with the majority party
appropriations to have language inserted in the Conference Report for
this bill which would direct NASA to report the amount of money spent
in its budget for safety overall as well as for each major program and
initiative for it fiscal year 2007 budget request and for all following
years. This language about NASA safety will help determine if enough
funds are being dispersed for safety procedures. In addition, it will
allow appropriators to determine from year to year whether there has
been an increase or decrease in safety spending. However, more can be
done and must be done to assure our brave astronauts that we have done
all we can to ensure their safety.
Given the great distances that NASA has traveled in terms of
progressing from widespread scrutiny and speculation as to whether it
operated with a culture of safety, the Jackson-Lee amendment will
preserve the transparency and the commitment to safety that will help
the families of the brave astronauts who will travel with Discovery
feel an added comfort. In the summer of 2003, Columbia accident
investigators condemned NASA's safety culture and put as much blame on
poor management as the flyaway piece of foam insulation that tore a
hole in the shuttle's lift wing at liftoff. The shuttle was destroyed
during re-entry on February 1, 2003, killing all seven astronauts
aboard.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that does not affect the
functionality of NASA. Rather, it seeks to strike the balance between
the need to explore and learn expeditiously and the need to remain
deliberate, responsible, and safe in doing so.
I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. We support safety.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering it. We accept the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, let me thank the
gentleman and let me thank my colleagues. I thank them for the
accepting of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would just say, that chart has been used a lot today for different
issues. This is probably the right issue for this time; is that
correct? It has been up here before. It is the chart that keeps
reappearing.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is the right poster this time. This is a poster that illustrates a
number of the States that have participated in sending their law
enforcement officers to the Regional Training Center in Sioux City,
Iowa. In fact, now it is the National Training Center in Sioux City,
Iowa, that has trained hundreds and hundreds of police officers.
Drug trafficking and its many associated crimes such as robbery,
burglary and murder contribute to the decay of our social fabric. This
problem is not only found locally or regionally, but also nationally.
Unfortunately, small-town and rural America are no longer shielded from
the impact of illegal drugs. Methamphetamine producers and traffickers
are some of the most dangerous drug offenders in our communities.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his recognition of
the importance of the Regional Training Center in Sioux City and its
inclusion as a line in the House report. The Regional Training Center
utilizes a regional and national approach to bring communities and
criminal justice agencies together to receive training to control the
growing national problem of methamphetamine, poly-drugs and their
associated crimes. The Regional Training Center seeks a comprehensive
approach to control and reduce meth trafficking, production and usage
along with other drugs. It provides training that serves small rural
communities as well as large metropolitan areas, including the 38
States here in this poster.
As of last March, the center has instructed a total of 19,308 law
enforcement professionals from 1,338 different agencies and actually
some foreign countries as well. It establishes a central clearinghouse
for organization, coordination, curriculum development and resource and
intelligence sharing that will benefit everyone impacted by the meth
problem. It draws on the input and cooperation of local law
enforcement, the business community, educational institutions, health
centers and community groups to create a network of cooperation and an
atmosphere of mutual support that will exist well into the future. It
provides up-to-date information and training on the growing trend of
terrorists using the sale of illegal drugs to fund their activities.
Meth can be manufactured a lot of ways. We have talked about that in
this appropriations process.
I want to also emphasize that they have opened up a canine training
center to train drug dogs here at the Regional Training Center, now
just really renamed the National Training Center. They have struggled
to put together the funding. This is something that was initiated by
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) some years ago. Today they can
hang on for a little while, but they need an appropriation. They need
an appropriation that hopefully will either be implemented in the
Senate or else come out of the conference report. I would ask him with
confidence if the gentleman would be willing to work with me on that
particular initiative.
Mr. WOLF. We will definitely work with the gentleman in conference to
ensure that this program is funded.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman very much for his work on
this issue and on many others on this appropriations bill.

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 offered by the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), and amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page H4550]]

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 201,
noes 222, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 256]

AYES--201

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

NOES--222

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Bono
Cuellar
Garrett (NJ)
Hyde
Napolitano
Northup
Oberstar
Sessions
Sullivan
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1735

Messrs. TIBERI, BOEHNER, BASS and LoBIONDO changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Ms.
McKINNEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 256, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 257]

AYES--242

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo

[[Page H4551]]

Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--9

Bono
Boucher
Cuellar
Garrett (NJ)
Hyde
Oberstar
Sessions
Sullivan
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1745

Mr. Butterfield and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. WALSH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 15 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

[Roll No. 258]

AYES--238

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kingston
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--187

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Bono
Cuellar
Garrett (NJ)
Hyde
Oberstar
Sessions
Sullivan
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1754

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed
with the level of funding in this apropriations bill for the State
Criminal Alien Assistanace Program which helps States and localities
jail criminal aliens. The bill is better than the President's budget
fiscal year 2006 request of $0 for SCAAP, but that isn't too difficult.

[[Page H4552]]

According to the Congressional Research Service, the President's
Budget request hasn't included a funding request for SCAAP since fiscal
year 2003. Unfortunately, even the level provided in this bill is far
below levels necessary to address the need of States and localities.
Senator Feinstein and a bipartisan House group including Congressman
Kolbe, the gentleman from Arizona, introduced bills that address the
need for higher funding levels for SCAAP, including S. 188 and H.R. 557
calling for a SCAAP funding for fiscal year 2006 of $750 million.
The President's home State of Texas is one of SCAAP's big
beneficiaries. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2004 the
President's home State, Texas, has received over $351 million in order
to incarcerate criminal aliens. But that doesn't even come close to the
approximately $1.6 billion that California received in the same period
or the $691 million that New York received.
The need for SCAAP funds to jail criminal aliens may well be why
Governors Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas, Arnold
Schwarzenegger of California, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill
Richardson of New Mexico, Richard Codey of New Jersey, Kenny Guinn of
Nevada, George Pataki of New York, Ruth Ann Miner of Delaware, Tom
Vilsack of Iowa, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, Sonny Perdue of Georgia,
Charles Turnbull of the Virgin Islands, Christine Gregoire of
Washington and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota wrote to Congress asking the
appropriations committee to provide $750 million for SCAAP.
Their letter made clear that ``SCAAP provides only partial, but
important, reimbursement for the cost to incarcerate these
individuals.''
I agree with the Governors and with Senator Feinstein and with some
of our colleagues in the House that in fiscal year 2006 that the $750
million level is the correct one and that increases may well be
necessary in future years.
Just looking at fiscal year 2004 SCAAP awards, at the level of
funding contained in this appropriations bill, California alone will
eat up at least a third of the monies available through SCAAP.
As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee I believe
that Congress must get its funding priorities right. We must focus on
terrorists and criminal aliens. At a time when this Congress wants to
outsource the enforcement of our civil immigration laws to the States,
we need to set the right priorities. We need to fund SCAAP at higher
levels.
Incarcerating criminal aliens is strongly in the homeland security
interest. Making sure that our States have the money to help the
Federal Government meet this commitment is in the homeland security
interest.

May 6, 2005.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Alan B. Mollohan,
Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wolf and Representative Mollohan: We write to
express our continued support for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP) and to request you appropriate
$750 million for this program in Fiscal Year 2006. SCAAP is
vital to states such as ours who bear a significant financial
burden for the federal government's failure to control our
nation's borders.
Congress has provided help in maintaining this program--but
more is needed. As Governors, we are well aware of the
difficult choices that must be made in prioritizing funding.
It is for this reason that we join together to write you now.
We want to reiterate our strong support for SCAAP and to
assure you of the critical importance of this program. Each
year, thousands of undocumented aliens who have committed
crimes in our states are incarcerated in state or local
facilities. SCAAP provides only a partial, but important,
reimbursement for the cost to incarcerate these individuals.
Our states are committed to working with the Federal
government to protect our nation. While we are doing what we
can in this important effort, immigration policy and
controlling the nation's borders are clear, fundamental
responsibilities of the Federal government and an essential
component of homeland security. Every effort should be made
to help States and local governments cover a greater share of
the expenses they incur to incarcerate criminal aliens.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. Again, we
appreciate your past support and we look forward to
continuing our work with you to ensure that SCAAP remains a
viable program for reimbursing State and local governments
for the burden they carry to incarcerate criminal aliens.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California; Rick
Perry, Governor of Texas; Richard J. Codey, Governor of
New Jersey; George E. Pataki, Governor of New York;
Thomas J. Vilsack, Governor of Iowa.
Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona; Bill Richardson,
Governor of New Mexico; Kenny Guinn, Governor of
Nevada; Ruth Ann Miner, Governor of Delaware; Rod R.
Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois.
Tommy Perdue, Governor of Georgia; Charles W. Turnbull,
Governor of Virgin Islands; Jeb Bush, Governor of
Florida; Christine Gregorie, Governor of Washington;
Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, It is unfortunate that our current budget
situation is forcing us today to make choices between funding for state
and local law enforcement, science and technology, and other important
programs funded in this bill. I am very concerned about the cuts to
COPS and other law enforcement programs. These important programs
deserve additional funding. However, I must oppose the amendments
offered today that will pay for these programs by cutting funding for
critical science and technology investments. Many of the science
programs funded in this bill have already been reduced, and I cannot
support additional reductions that will weaken our science and
technology capabilities and undermine our future economic strength.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on amendments that reduce our
commitment to science programs.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Fiscal Year 2006 Science, State, Justice Appropriations bill and to
compliment my colleague, Frank Wolf, for a job well done.
I am particularly pleased with the increase given to the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP and I would like to commend
Chairman Wolf for his support of this important program.
The manufacturing sector in this country faces many challenges. There
are several major issues that we and other policy makers on the Federal
level need to address to improve the business environment for
manufacturers. Those will take time. But the MEP program has a direct
impact on thousands of small and medium manufacturers each year.
MEP is a Federal-State-private network of over 60 centers with 400
locations in all 50 States. These not-for-profit centers work with
small and medium-sized manufacturers to help them adopt and use the
latest and most efficient technologies, processes, and business
practices.
The MEP Center in my home State, the Michigan Manufacturing
Technology Center, or MMTC, helps Michigan's small and medium-sized
manufacturing companies get competitive and remain that way. Founded in
1991, MMTC has six offices in Michigan. I have heard from numerous
companies throughout Michigan that have benefited from MMTC's services.
Let me point out one such company, Tru-Val Tubing Company in
Waterford, Michigan, which is located in my district. Tru-Val
fabricates metal tubing for General Motors and DaimlerChrysler as well
as several other Tier I automotive suppliers and employs approximately
120 people.
Tru-Val Tubing began working with the MMTC in 1999, and over the past
6 years of improvements, the company's defective parts-per-million have
dropped from 3,500 to zero. This resulted in General Motors
reclassifying Tru-Val from the bottom 5 percent to the top 5 percent of
their supply base. Furthermore, Tru-Val's employees are much more
satisfied with their jobs than they once were, as the company has seen
a dramatic reduction in employee turnover. Most importantly, Tru-Val
increased its employment from 85 to 120 as a result of the improvement
in the company.
Helro Corporation of Rochester, Michigan, also located in my
district, is another excellent example. Helro, a small manufacturer
with 19 employees, was established in the 1960s as a form toolmaker,
using a patented carbide coating and whitewall tire buffing. After
relocating to Rochester, Michigan, in April 1998, Helro recognized that
it would need to achieve certification if it wanted to compete in the
tooling marketplace.
Finding the idea of a peer group exchange of information appealing,
Helro quickly joined MMTC's ISO 9000 User Group and got everyone in the
company involved. As a result, Helro came through its ISO 9001
certification audit with flying colors and was certified in September
2000. Through the certification process, Helro identified areas of
waste, resulting in savings that covered the cost of its participation
in the User Group. Moreover, Helro improved customer satisfaction and
its credibility in the marketplace, allowing for easier introduction of
its new product line.
The results at Tru-Val Tubing and Helro are not an anomaly. In fiscal
year 2003 alone, MEP served more than 18,0 0 manufacturers nationwide.
Those manufacturers reported an additional $2.6 billion in sales, $686
million more in cost savings, $912 million of additional investment in
plant modernization, and more than 50,000 more jobs just as a result of

[[Page H4553]]

their projects with MEP Centers that year. Additionally, an estimate of
the Federal return on our investment in MEP Centers is $4 in Federal
tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program.
MEP has a documented positive impact on our manufacturing sector, and
is particularly vital to our small manufacturers. As vital as this
program is to our manufacturers, fiscal year 2006 funding is vital to
MEP.
In addition to the funding restored to MEP, I am also pleased with
the increase given to the National Science Foundation. NSF is the most
important funding source for universities who educate the next
generation of scientists engineers and thereby plant the seed for
America's future prosperity.
I hope that NSF will continue its strong support of university based
laboratories and user facilities, including the National
Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University.
These NSF-supported labs create powerful synergies between cutting edge
research and education and are a model of state and federal
partnership.
We can't afford to underestimate the importance of these programs.
Our educators tell us that students are attracted by on-campus
capabilities; not by the promise of an airline ticket to some remote
laboratory in the U.S. or even abroad where they can visit for a few
weeks.
As well, the current funding level should provide NSF with the
flexibility to support both its planned activities and fund peer-
reviewed, non-solicited proposals. Progress in science is often
unpredictable and NSF must reserve the institutional agility to invest
in ``bottom-up'' ideas that result from fast-breaking research
discoveries.
Timely, flexible funding through NSF is a critical investment in our
economic future and continued scientific leadership in the world. It
deserves our support.
In closing, I would like to again extend my thanks to Chairman Wolf
for his excellent work, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Marchant) 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. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________