[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

  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 violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment proposes to state a legislative provision.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak again on the substance of this amendment.
  This is merely a sense of Congress respecting the integrity and the 
independence of the judiciary. I know the honorable chairman offered a 
sense of Congress amendment on Darfur last year to the appropriation 
bill. This is similarly merely a sense of Congress amendment asking 
that we not only observe the independence of the judiciary, but make 
sure we provide for the safety of the bench. We just saw another 
shooting today outside of a courthouse, and I would ask the chairman to 
consider this sense of Congress much as the one that was offered last 
session.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any further Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment expresses legislative sentiment. 
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 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

  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 124, 
noes 304, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [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

  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 210, 
noes 216, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [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

  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 161, 
noes 264, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [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.

  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.
  I look forward to working with the ranking member and the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and I want to thank them again for their courtesies 
as well as their staffs' courtesies in working through some of the 
issues that we find very troubling and important to address in this 
appropriation.
  My amendment at the desk is one that I offer dealing with the Board 
of Immigration Appeals affirmances, which I intend to subsequently 
withdraw, and I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee on this important 
issue.
  It relates to the administrative review and appeals and immigration-
related activities referenced in title I of this act. This matter is 
near and dear to many who understand the importance of the Board of 
Immigration Appeals.
  I believe that we should withhold funds in the act for programs that 
would facilitate the issuance of affirmances by single members of the 
Board of Immigration Appeals, the BIA, without an opinion. This would 
protect the petitioner for immigration review by ensuring that their 
$110 filing fee does not leave them with a simple ``affirmed'' with no 
basis for a decision.

                              {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

  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 242, 
noes 182, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [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

  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 238, 
noes 187, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________