[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10050-H10053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2862, 
SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 538

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  House Resolution 538 waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration and provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 538 and 
the underlying conference report for H.R. 2862, the Science, State, 
Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005. This 
conference report provides $57.85 billion, $2.5 billion less than the 
President requested, to fund the Departments of Justice, Commerce and 
State along with NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Federal 
Communication Commission, FCC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
SEC, the Legal Services Corporation, and the Small Business 
Administration, SBA.

                              {time}  1100

  In recognition of the continual requirement to reassess our security 
and law enforcement needs, this conference report establishes 
responsible priorities to enable law enforcement to meet threats abroad 
and at home in order to secure our communities.
  Madam Speaker, this conference report provides $5.8 billion for the 
FBI, an increase of $547 million above fiscal year 2005 and $15 million 
above the President's request. It provides $1.7 billion for the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, the DEA, and this is a $48 million increase above 
fiscal 2005, and it is $8 million below the President's request.
  It provides $802 million for the United States Marshals Service, and 
this is an increase of $42 million from fiscal year 2005 and actually 
$12 million above the President's request.
  Additionally, included in the conference report is $924 million for 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an increase of 
$41 million above fiscal year 2005, and it is the same as the 
President's request.
  Further, this conference report contains $2.7 billion for assistance 
to State and local law enforcement for crime-fighting initiatives, $1.1 
billion above the President's request and actually $287 million below 
fiscal year 2005.
  This amount includes $405 million to reimburse States for criminal 
alien detention costs, $387 million for violence against women 
prevention and prosecution programs, $416 million for the Edward Byrne 
Discretionary Grants program, $340 million for juvenile delinquency 
prevention and accountability programs. It includes $109 million to 
eliminate DNA analysis backlogs, $140 million for law enforcement 
technologies and interoperability, $64 million for methamphetamine 
hotspots, and $40 million to reduce gang violence.
  Madam Speaker, this conference report appropriates $6.6 billion for 
the Department of Commerce, marking a decrease of $37 million from 
fiscal year 2005 and a $2.9 billion increase from the President's 
request.
  Recognizing the importance of space exploration that has fascinated 
minds for generations and provided many breakthrough technologies, this 
conference report matches the President's request of $16.5 billion to 
NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, and this is $260 
million above fiscal year 2005. The bill provides funding for space 
exploration and the space shuttle program, restoring the aeronautics 
research program. Additionally, the National Science Foundation would 
receive $5.65 million of much-needed funding to drive American research 
and education, thereby keeping this country on the cutting edge of 
advanced technology and research.
  This conference report also provides $9.6 billion for the State 
Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, including $1.6 
billion to continue worldwide security improvements and replacement of 
vulnerable embassies; $4.4 billion for diplomatic and consular 
programs; and $652 million for international broadcasting, including 
expanding broadcasting to the broader Middle East.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes $456 billion 
for the Small Business Administration, $290 million for the Federal 
Communications Commission, $888 million for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and $331 million for the Legal Services Corporation.
  While this conference report is not perfect, all in all it adds up to 
better protection for our communities, stronger law enforcement at 
home, more vigorous diplomacy abroad, and improved scientific research 
and technology. This is the kind of fundamental

[[Page H10051]]

support that Americans expect from this Congress. These are true 
national priorities, balanced with our budgetary restrictions and with 
fiscal responsibility in mind.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues' support of 
the rule and the underlying conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this rule, this House 
will consider the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related 
agencies appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2006. I want 
to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), the ranking member, for working together to create a bill 
that seems to be a fair and responsible piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that budgets are moral documents, and where 
and how we decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our 
values as a society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly 
could.
  This conference report, among other things, rightfully retains 
language included in the House-passed bill that prohibits funds being 
used to support or justify the use of torture by the United States 
Government. Despite the rhetoric coming from the White House, this 
language is both necessary and appropriate.
  As the most powerful democracy in the history of the world, we have a 
moral responsibility not only to promote the expansion of our 
democratic values around the world, but perhaps most importantly, to 
demonstrate our commitment to them through our own practices and in the 
legislation we pass here in the Congress.
  One of the most dramatic and significant tests of that commitment is 
before us today in the debate over our own use of the abhorrent 
practice of torture. The United States of America, as the leader of the 
free world, cannot and must not engage in a behavior which has been 
condemned around the world by the international community. To engage in 
such a heinous practice is a betrayal of our own values as defenders of 
freedom and liberty.
  The fact that those who would seek to take away our freedom and the 
freedom of others utilize such techniques is in no way a justification 
here.
  As a matter of the highest national security, we must openly and 
outright reject the use of torture as a means of achieving military 
victory in this or any other war. Our ideals as a Nation demand nothing 
less. Indeed, the fact that we must even engage in this debate on the 
House floor is indicative of the deep crisis of conscience which has 
embroiled the White House.
  Senator John McCain is working hard to build on the language in this 
conference report with regard to torture and include language in the 
DOD authorization bill prohibiting the use of torture and to make real 
and meaningful policy changes. His amendment is important. It is 
broadly supported and should be signed into law as soon as possible.
  It is disconcerting that, as we speak here today, the White House is 
fighting Senator McCain and others who support his initiative every 
step of the way. Senator McCain certainly knows a lot more about the 
reality of detention and torture and the ineffectiveness of torture 
than the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense.
  The recent revelation that the United States has secret prisons 
around the world and that there is no accountability or there is no 
oversight of what goes on in those prisons, quite frankly, is a 
national scandal.
  This is not what America is about. This is not what America stands 
for, and the sad reality is that the reckless behavior of this 
administration when it comes to torture has put our own soldiers in 
more jeopardy.
  Mr. Speaker, America can do better; and once we pass this conference 
report, I hope we will all join in a bipartisan way to support Senator 
McCain's effort to ban torture as a policy for this country once and 
for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees once again stripped 
the Sanders provision from this bill that would have prevented funds in 
the bill from being used to implement provisions in section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act. These provisions permit searches of library circulation 
records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer 
lists.
  This amendment passed by a vote of 238-187, yet the Republican 
leadership has decided to strip it out of the bill. This is wrong and 
these provisions, like so many others in the PATRIOT Act, quite frankly 
should be stripped out of the bill as well.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want this provision. A 
majority in this Congress do not want this provision, and yet somehow 
it managed to basically be null and voided in the conference committee.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes language 
prohibiting the White House from blocking the importation of discount 
prescription drugs through trade agreements. That means that the White 
House cannot subvert the House's authority by preventing the American 
people from having access to life-saving, affordable prescription 
drugs. I strongly believe that access to affordable medication and 
health care should be a right in this country and not the fodder of a 
political power struggle. Health care should be a right in the United 
States of America and not a privilege.
  I applaud my colleagues in both Houses for demonstrating the rare 
political will to constrain the power of this White House in the 
interest of protecting the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, budgets are moral documents, and this 
budget is a statement of America's principles. The level of funding the 
committee had to work with is woefully small because of the fiscal 
ineptitude of the Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush 
administration. Their policy of tax cuts for the rich and a continual 
growing of the Federal deficit has forced important programs like legal 
services for the poor and COPS funding to be cut. This is 
irresponsible, and this does not reflect the wishes and values of the 
American people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, let me once again commend Chairman Wolf and 
Ranking Member Mollohan for making the best out of a bad situation. I 
appreciate their help and their hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill fails the tens of thousands of Texans living 
along the Lower Rio Grande River Valley. It is difficult to fault the 
conferees for this failure since they approved every dollar requested 
by President Bush and his Administration for flood prevention, but this 
Administration appears to have learned absolutely nothing from the 
Hurricane Katrina disaster when it comes to protecting poor people from 
being inundated by the failure of defective levees.
  Along the Rio Grande River in the Valley, we have some 270 miles of 
levees and numerous drainage structures and floodways that are meant to 
protect our citizens from flooding. All of this levee infrastructure, 
every bit of the levees, is not city, it is not county, it is Federal 
infrastructure.
  The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water 
Commission (IBWC) is a tiny Federal agency based in El Paso, Texas, and 
it reports through the Department of State, through Secretary 
Condoleezza Rice here in Washington, to the President. Its director is 
appointed by the President. It was originally set up to define and 
protect the boundary between the United States and Mexico. Now it has 
responsibility for seeing that the levees under its jurisdiction 
protect the Valley's growing population, which includes one of the 
poorest populations in the United States.
  Only the Federal Government can change, alter, or improve these 
levees. The dozens of local governments, the businesses, the homes of 
tens of thousands of American citizens are all at risk when the Federal 
administration shirks its responsibility to protect them as this one 
has done.

[[Page H10052]]

  In New Orleans, we saw levees breached at a terrible cost, suffered 
by many, but a cost particularly borne by the poorest citizens of that 
city.
  In the Valley, as in New Orleans, the Federal Government cannot 
justifiably claim that ``nobody anticipated a breach of the levees,'' 
as President Bush mistakenly declared on September 1 of this year, in 
offering his first of many excuses about the Katrina disaster.
  In June of 2003, the IBWC itself, the Federal agency in the Bush 
Administration with the expertise and the sole responsibility for these 
levees along the Rio Grande, issued its report entitled ``Hydraulic 
Model of the Rio Grande and Floodways.''

                              {time}  1115

  It concluded that a 100-year flood, the type that could be produced 
by a hurricane with far less punch than Katrina, will result in the 
levee system being overwhelmed along many river miles at a variety of 
locations. This is the type of flooding that will shut down the 
McAllen-Miller International Airport, affect the international trade 
zone and bridges, and will inundate thousands of homes and businesses, 
endangering people across the Rio Grande Valley.
  Nor do the similarities between the Rio Grande Valley and New Orleans 
end with the deficient preparation of the infrastructure that this bill 
fails to address. After Katrina, we learned that positions at the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, were filled with political 
cronies. Less well-known, but equally important, indeed more important 
to my constituents in Texas, are the findings that were made this year 
concerning President Bush's appointment of the Commissioner of the U.S. 
International Boundary and Water Commission, who recently departed. His 
appointee, who had responsibility for these levees and the protection 
of thousands of Texans, was criticized earlier this year by the General 
Accountability Office as ``rewarding long-time friends with ranking 
positions'' and ``provoking a hemorrhage of qualified personnel, 
personnel who protect against floods, monitor the safety of water, and 
assure back-up electrical power for Texas.''
  Sounds a lot like the great job that Ol' Brownie did. And as the 
painful footage of Katrina shows, the price to be paid by Americans is 
grave indeed.
  We know that sea levels are rising around the world, and the Gulf of 
Mexico has entered a cycle of intensified hurricane activity: Katrina, 
Wilma, Alpha, Beta, so many hurricanes we ran out of names for them. 
But for the grace of God, had they headed toward the mouth of the Rio 
Grande River, we would be seeing on the evening news flood victims in 
Hidalgo, in McAllen and in Mission being rescued. Yet, despite repeated 
calls for action, the Bush Administration did not add one thin dime to 
its construction budget in this bill to protect our Valley residents.
  This is a chart right out of the IBWC's own report showing by color, 
6 feet in purple, 6 feet over the top of the existing levees with a 
major flood. Five to 6 feet, all this red, 2 to 3 feet over the top of 
the levees. What is going to happen to the City of Hidalgo? What is 
going to happen to all the businesses and homes and tens of thousands 
of people who live in this area if we do not provide an adequate amount 
of funding to repair the levees?
  This bill approves every dime the President asked for, but he is 
failing the Texas Valley. He is failing to learn the lessons of Katrina 
and protect the people of the Rio Grande Valley, who live in the 
poorest statistical metropolitan area, McAllen-Mission, in the entire 
United States. The Federal Government is failing to meet its 
responsibility to provide them the security that the people of New 
Orleans did not have.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close as I began today by pointing 
out to my colleagues that this conference report prohibits funding from 
being used by the United States Government for torture. We need to make 
this the absolute policy of our country.
  Friday is Veterans Day, and we need to do everything we can to honor 
our veterans, but we can honor our veterans in part by doing everything 
we can to protect the soldiers who are now on the field, and that must 
mean making torture something that this country will never be part of.
  I am horrified, quite frankly, by the behavior of the White House on 
this issue. They attempted to try to undermine what Senator McCain has 
tried to do in the Senate and what some of us have tried to do here in 
the House. Those who believe that torture should have no place in 
America or American society are frustrated by what the White House is 
trying to do. We are a much better country.
  The U.S. Army Manual bans torture, prohibits it. And one of the 
reasons why is because those who are in the military understand that it 
jeopardizes the lives of Americans, of American soldiers. How do we 
demand that the international laws be respected and that if one of our 
citizens was taken as a prisoner that they not be abused or tortured if 
it is not the policy of this country to prohibit torture in any shape 
or form? We need to do better, Mr. Speaker.
  I will just conclude by saying that I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill. We do not have any problem with the rule. But I would also 
urge my colleagues, once this bill is passed, to join with those in the 
Senate in a bipartisan way to prohibit torture once and for all. This 
should not be part of America. We are much better than this. We do not 
stand for that. And if the White House does not get the massage, we 
need to force the issue and to send them a bill that in fact has this 
prohibition in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, regarding some of the statements he made about 
torture. Certainly the provision in this bill concerning that prohibits 
funds, as he pointed out, from being used in any way whatsoever to 
support or justify the use of torture by any official or contract 
employee of the United States Government. I know the gentleman was not 
suggesting that this President or any Member of this Congress condones 
torture.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, not once but twice, to visit the 
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and on each occasion I was 
accompanied by a Member from the other side of the aisle, a respected 
Democratic member on the Armed Services Committee. This was long 
before, Mr. Speaker, the occurrence at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Again, I 
say I went on two different occasions and at no time did I see any 
evidence whatsoever of torture.
  What I did see was the International Committee of the Red Cross there 
interviewing the detainees in privacy, without any detention officers 
or any member of our military present. So these detainees had every 
opportunity to complain, and certainly complain they did.
  I know as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that a number of our troops 
were reprimanded because they overreacted on occasion when they were 
cursed and spat upon and had human excrement, feces, and urine tossed 
in their face. But this is not cruel and inhumane punishment.
  I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is a great advocate of human 
rights, and I think he is right on what he is standing up for. And, 
again, the unfortunate occurrence at Abu Ghraib at Cellblock 1 on the 
night shift by a few miscreant Reservists is deplorable and 
intolerable, and it will not be tolerated. I know that our military 
responded and responded in the correct way. So, certainly, I just want 
to say I agree with the gentleman on his comment that we cannot 
tolerate that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, 
my point is that if in fact we can all agree that torture is abhorrent 
and something that should not be part of this society, then I hope we 
can all in a bipartisan way support the effort of Senator McCain, who 
wants to make it the policy of this land.
  My problem with the White House, quite frankly, is that I am puzzled 
why they are trying to lobby to undermine what Senator McCain is doing. 
I am also quite frankly shocked by the recent revelations in the 
Washington

[[Page H10053]]

Post about these secret prisons that we have all over the world where 
really, basically, there is no accountability.
  So my point is, if we can all agree that this is wrong, let us make 
it the absolute law of this land and comply with what the U.S. Army 
Manual says and support Senator McCain in his efforts. And I hope we 
can do that in a bipartisan way, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I will simply close by 
recognizing the hard work and the incredible effort of Subcommittee 
Chairman Wolf and all of the House and Senate conferees. Reconciling 
differences between the two Chambers is rarely a simple task, but I 
believe they have once again risen to the occasion and they have 
produced a conference report that may not please everybody with 
everything, but it gets the job done by appropriately balancing our 
spending needs with our budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people demand and they expect responsible 
spending to support law enforcement, strengthened diplomacy which 
builds upon our competitive edge. Today, it is my hope that we have 
delivered. So I ask my colleagues for their full support of the rule 
and this underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________