[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8412-H8418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3093, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 562
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3093
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is
authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 3093.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Arcuri) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. For purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 562 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R.
3093, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and
ranking member for reporting out a bill that not only does not pay lip
service but makes critical investment in our Nation's communities.
The bill provides $725 million for Community Oriented Policing
Services, more commonly known as the COPS program, 25 percent above the
current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally
important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire
and train law enforcement officers to participate in community
policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and
develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.
The administration had proposed to modify the COPS program into a new
discretionary grant program, but the committee has chosen instead to
keep COPS as a separate dedicated grant program. This is a proven model
for getting these grants to the communities that need them, and I
applaud the committee for preserving this program.
The bill includes $303 million for Economic Development
Administration, the EDA. The EDA administers several economic
development programs including public work grants for upgrading
infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for
communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.
Additionally, the legislation would direct the EDA to consider with
favorable bias grant proposals which incorporate green technologies and
strategies that would reduce energy consumption, reduce harmful gas
emissions, and contribute to sustainability.
The bill provides $50 million, 52 percent more than the current
funding, for the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program helps
localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime, and then take
the all-important step that is so often left out of seeding the
formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood
revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in
cities, such as my home in Utica, New York, and
[[Page H8413]]
sponsor activities such as truancy prevention, conflict resolution,
mentoring, and job training for at-risk youths.
Additionally, the bill, this resolution, provides for consideration
and includes $40 million for grants, technical assistance, and training
to State and local governments to develop dedicated drug courts that
subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug
testing, incentives, and sanctions.
As a DA, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law
enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really
affected the demand for drugs which never seemed to diminish and,
therefore, created a seemingly endless market for drug dealers. But
when my office established the county's drug court program, I realized
the powerful effect that the program had in helping enrolled
participants get control of their addiction and thereby reducing their
demand for drugs. The appropriation of $40 million for drug court
provided by H.R. 3093 is $30 million more than the current level, and I
congratulate the committee for increasing funds for this vital and
proven weapon on the war on drugs.
H.R. 3093 would also create incentives to fight illegal immigration.
It would prohibit the Federal Government from using any of these funds
on any entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program
which allows employers to verify whether potential or current employees
can legally work in the United States. This voluntary pilot program was
created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of
1996 and allows employers to verify employment status through an
automated system linked to the Social Security Administration and
Department of Homeland Security data bases.
This legislation also includes $6.5 billion for the National Science
Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's
budget over the next 10 years, and represents a true commitment to
investment in basic research and development, which will provide for
innovation and future technologies. This commitment is an important
part of the innovation agenda designed to maintain the United States'
competitiveness.
H.R. 3093 also includes over $17.6 billion for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to
pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research; and this appropriation enables them to accomplish
this mission by restoring some of the cuts made by the administration
to science, aeronautics, and education portfolios at the agency. This
recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Moon-
Mars goals. The act calls on NASA to expand human knowledge, develop
and operate advanced aeronautical and space-faring vehicles; encourage
commercial use of space; coordinate with other U.S. agencies to
maximize research results; cooperate with other nations in research and
applications and to preserve U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space.
This bill also prohibits the use of funds by the FBI to issue
National Security Letters in contravention of the statutes authorizing
their use. National Security Letters enable the FBI to secretly review
customer records of suspected foreign agents without judicial review.
In March, the Department of Justice Inspector General reported that the
FBI agents had in numerous cases misused National Security Letters
without complying with either statutes or DOJ guidelines governing
their use. This widespread abuse of secret investigatory powers
undermines the very notions of liberty and freedom from tyranny upon
which this Nation was founded. The prohibition on use of funds
contained in H.R. 3093 will ensure that such abuse does not continue.
Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important
programs for which H.R. 3093 would appropriate funds. My remarks have
focused on the criminal justice, NASA funding, and economic development
aspects of the bill; but there are many other important areas addressed
in this legislation. It provides funding for critical scientific
research, including several programs which study global warming and
climate change that the administration attempted to eliminate. The
Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would maintain the
funding of this critical research, and I once again thank them for
their work and welcome a chance to vote in favor of this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill
provides more than $53.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal
year 2008, which is over 6 percent more than last year's enacted level.
{time} 1145
While I support some of the increases in this bill that support our
national priorities, such as counterterrorism and crime-fighting
initiatives, I'm concerned that this bill falls in line with the spend
now, tax later philosophy of the Democrat majority. This philosophy, as
outlined in the Democrats' budget plan, puts each taxpayer on the path
toward an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. This, once
again, is another burden for the average taxpayer to bear.
Rather than prioritizing spending and making the tough choices, this
bill aims to solve our Nation's problems by simply spending more money.
This also ignores real threats to our security that must be addressed.
So, Mr. Speaker, one very serious problem that must be addressed
before Congress adjourns next week, and that is changing current law so
that our Intelligence Community has the tools it needs to monitor the
telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in
foreign countries.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff earlier this month
indicated that the United States remains vulnerable to another
terrorist attack, and that recent chatter levels are near those levels
prior to September 11, 2001. But because of our failure to respond to
technological advances, current law ties the hands of our Intelligence
Community since significant portions of our intelligence is being
missed, intelligence that could prevent a future attack on our Nation.
If we expect our Intelligence Community to do everything in their
power under the law to protect our Nation against a future attack, then
we must give them the resources and tools they need to stay ahead of
those who wish to harm us.
It is vital that we act immediately to modernize the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to clarify that the United
States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to
terrorists who are not in the United States.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify, change the law
in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required
to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United
States. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Community could be
missing vital information, increasing our risk of another attack on
U.S. soil.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the
previous question on the rule so that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act can be immediately modernized.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his
comments, and I couldn't agree with him more. Clearly, the safety of
our Nation from foreign enemies is critical, and it's something that
needs to be a priority and is a priority with this Congress and prior
Congresses.
But one thing that I think is critical that we can never forget is
safety doesn't begin at our borders. Safety is something that we need
to recognize within our borders as well, and this bill takes great
strides in terms of ensuring that our children are safe when they go to
school. It puts more police officers on the street. It increases
funding for the DNA database to help us locate rapists and criminals
who have committed crimes and locate them and
[[Page H8414]]
bring them to justice. It funds the drug court program, which is
critical in terms of dealing with people who are addicted to drugs.
This bill takes a balanced approach to law enforcement, takes a
balanced approach to what this country needs to keep our citizens safe,
both internally and externally as well. And I believe that it is a very
good bill, and that we should support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much
time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee,
Mr. Dreier from California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Pasco for
yielding to me. And I thank him for his management of this rule, as
well as my new friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
I have to say that I'm glad that there is bipartisan concern voiced
about security, and I appreciate the remarks that my friend from New
York has just made, Mr. Speaker, about the issue of ensuring that we
provide security for our children and for anyone who possibly could
face the challenge of being a victim of crime in this country.
The fact of the matter is I am very, very supportive of the notion
that Mr. Hastings is putting forward here that we need to do everything
that we can to prevent those who want to, en masse, kill us, as
Americans, from being able to do that.
Now, it was 1978, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, that the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place. It was designed to
deal with what today is very, very antiquated technology. I mean, I
remember when we had this debate before about the notion of being able
to follow one single telephone line that is out there. Well, when all
we had were hard lines and one telephone line, courts would get a
warrant to follow that one phone line because that's the only way
people could communicate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world, when it comes to
telecommunications, certainly is a heck of a lot different than it was
30 years ago, 29 years ago, 1978.
And what is it that we're saying?
Mr. Hastings is saying that, in recognition of the statements that
were made most recently by the Secretary of Homeland Security Mr.
Chertoff, that there is a higher level of chatter, and we need to do
what we can to monitor it; coupled with statements made by the Director
of National Intelligence, Director McConnell, who's made it very, very
clear that we are today blind and deaf when it comes to the ability to
monitor not people here in the United States, Mr. Speaker, we're
talking about people who are foreigners and who are trying to do us in.
And so Mr. Hastings is simply saying that what we need to do is
defeat the previous question so that we can make in order a chance for
us to deal with the issue of modernization of that three-decade-old
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which today hamstrings us when it
comes to the need for us to try and prevent terrorists from killing
Americans. It's just that simple. And that kind of modification, that
kind of modernization, that kind of reform is absolutely essential if
we're going to have the tools necessary to successfully prosecute the
war on terror.
And so I believe that every Member, Democrat and Republican alike,
who's concerned about our need to ensure that people who are overseas
and want to do us in, and that we cannot monitor, we should be able to
do just that. And I think most thinking Americans believe that having
the capability to monitor those in Iran, in Syria and in other
countries who would want to do us in, that they should, in fact, be
monitored, and we should get that information.
Now, this bill itself does, as my friend from Pasco has said, have a
number of good things in it. It has some very, very important items
that will help us deal with the challenge of crime that exists in this
country, and obviously it provides very important funding for a high
priority that I have, and that is NASA funding. The jet propulsion
laboratory in La Canada Flint Ridge, California, is a very important
facility which has made great strides with its Mars program and a wide
range of other programs that they're involved in.
Mr. Speaker, this program also has funding for something that I
believe is essential for us to realize, and it's on an issue that this
place has debated time and time again, and it's one that we're still
struggling over, and that is the issue of border security and the
problem of illegal immigration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be offering an amendment when this
bill proceeds which will allow us to actually increase the funding for
what is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.
Now, one of the things we found, we put this program into place in
the mid-1990s, and we found that State and local governments are, in
fact, shouldering the responsibility, the financial burden, of the
incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and commit
crimes. In my county alone of Los Angeles, the cost is $150 million a
year, according to my friend who's the sheriff of Los Angeles County.
He's said that to me repeatedly; $150 million a year to incarcerate
people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes
against our citizenry.
It's not the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, the County of
Los Angeles or the State of California to shoulder that financial
burden. The protection of international borders lies with the Federal
Government, Washington, D.C., and that's why we have the SCAAP program.
We need to secure our borders. We need to take the responsibility for
securing our borders. And because we have not done that yet, and I
still am optimistic about our chance to do that, we need to make sure
that we reimburse the States and counties and cities that are, in fact,
responsible for the financial burden today of incarceration of those
people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes
against us.
And so I will be offering that amendment. We'll be transferring
monies, Mr. Speaker, out of the administrative expenses of the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, and I hope that
we will be able to have strong bipartisan support.
I will say I'm very proud that our California delegation has, in
years past, come together, Republicans and Democrats, working together
to increase the level of funding for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program. Last year I was proud to have offered an amendment
that had a $50 million increase for the SCAAP funding level that
brought it to the $405 million level where it is today, and we had
Democrats and Republicans joining in support of the amendment that I
offered.
I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that once again this year we'll have
Democrats and Republicans who will join in support of the amendment
that I will be offering that will have that increase in the funding
level for SCAAP, so that we will be able to say to State and local
governments that you are not going to be totally responsible for
shouldering that burden.
So I thank my friend for yielding. I want to join, again, in urging a
``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can make this very
important amendment in order for FISA reform. And I hope that when we
do get to consideration of the bill itself, that we'll have strong
bipartisan support for the very important amendment that I'm going to
be offering to increase funding for SCAAP.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia, the chairman of the CJS subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for
consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies.
I would first like to thank distinguished Chairwoman Slaughter,
Ranking Member Dreier and the entire Rules Committee for this open
rule.
Mr. Speaker, we bring before you today a balanced appropriation bill
that's responsive to Member input on both sides of the aisle and
reflects the legislative priorities of this Congress. This bill is
creative in addressing problems that face our Nation, such as the
[[Page H8415]]
rising crime rates that can only be addressed through additional law
enforcement resources, the need for scientific research and discovery
to inspire our youth and maintain our competitive edge in an
increasingly competitive world economy, and the need for our country to
understand and address the documented phenomena of global climate
change.
In this diverse bill we have gone to great lengths to address these
and many other issues, and, Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be
pleased with the result. And again, I urge support for this rule.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say, as a former
Justice Department official who worked on national security, wiretaps
or FISAs, I can think of no more important issues facing this country
and this Congress than the modernization of the FISA statute. And I
hope and I plead with my colleagues to support this measure.
I rise today to bring to the House's attention an issue dealing with
changes to NASA's account structure required by H.R. 3093 and the
challenges this provision will impose on NASA.
Title III of this bill increases the number of appropriations
accounts that fund NASA from three to seven, and it requires conversion
to this new structure in fiscal year 2008. Implementing this change
will impose a tremendous burden on NASA's accounting system, at an
unknown cost, and it's unclear what the net advantage of such a
structural change, what that would be.
{time} 1200
The current structure with three accounts coupled with customary
congressional direction contained in the committee report language
provides the agency unambiguous guidance regarding spending levels of
the program, project, and in some cases at the activity level.
Since 2001, NASA has been implementing a new software package to
standardize its accounting and financial software across all 11 of its
centers, and at the same time NASA has been putting in place a new
means of allocating overhead costs. These efforts have not yet been
completed, and to now direct the agency to reformat its basic
accounting system is especially burdensome and complex. It may also
force the agency to reevaluate the manner in which it calculates
overhead rates.
In a letter addressed to the House Appropriations leadership last
month on the account structure change, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin
stated that ``it would have a severe and extensive impact upon NASA's
financial system'' and ``would make maintaining NASA's ability to
execute in full cost exceedingly complex.''
H.R. 3093 also directs NASA to implement the account structure change
in 2008, a task that NASA says it simply cannot do in the time
permitted.
So I strongly urge the committee leadership to reflect carefully on
the concerns raised by Administrator Griffin and to work with NASA in
the weeks ahead to reach an agreement on a budget structure that allows
for greater transparency without undermining NASA's current accounting
system.
I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee for their hard work and for the resources
provided to NASA in this bill.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New
York, my colleague from Washington, and colleagues on the Rules
Committee.
Today, as you know, the House takes up the 10th of 12 appropriation
measures, and this bill is all about continuing to make progress in
America, in this Congress, in changing our domestic priorities. There
are two points about this bill I want to address: first, law
enforcement; second, science.
Law enforcement in our communities is the front line of protecting
our communities. It is best done locally. This legislation, bipartisan,
by the way, reverses 5 years of cuts to local law enforcement grants at
a time when we need it. Violent crime, unfortunately, is on the rise.
This funds our local law enforcement communities to do the job of
building and maintaining safe communities. It does soundly reject the
administration's proposed cuts to undo funding formulas that have been
particularly helpful with the small State minimum.
The bill heavily invests in the safety and well-being of Americans,
providing a total of $3.2 billion for State and local law enforcement
efforts. $430 million will go to the Office on Violence Against Women.
And, as you know, that strives to reduce the prevalence of violence
committed against women. $100 million goes for the Cops on the Beat
program, something that has been a major bipartisan success over the
years.
The second issue is science. I want specifically to applaud the
subcommittee for its support of the sciences and the emerging
multidisciplinary field of service science. That combines disciplines
like computer science, operations research, industrial engineering,
business strategy, and management sciences to meet the 21st century
needs of the workforce. The National Science Foundation should review
what is currently being done in the area of service science and explore
what more can be done.
The work of the NSF and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST, is critical to fostering greater U.S. innovation and
competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and math. The
investment in these agencies is an investment in that education and the
development of the crucial multidisciplinary skills that are required
to maintain our workforce and compete in the world economy.
As much more of our economy is service-based, we must ensure that our
science agencies are focused on both research and education that
promote innovation in service sectors such as education, health care,
energy, telecommunications, and finance. The growing service sector in
my State of Vermont is probably typical. It provides some of our best-
paying jobs, nearly 80 percent of our employment. Last year we exported
more than a half billion dollars in services, and 8,000 Vermonters were
employed because of foreign investment in that sector.
This bill's investment in service-related research and STEM education
through the NSF and NIST will foster innovation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a
leader in this body on national security issues.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is
defeated today, we will offer an immediate amendment to reform the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The reform is very, very simple. It doesn't affect most programs, but
all it does is say that you do not need a warrant to listen to foreign
communications by foreigners who are in foreign countries. That is all
it says. But it is critical that we make this change, and it is
critical that we make this change immediately.
I would say to my colleagues and to those Members of congressional
staffs who are monitoring the proceedings on the floor here today, I
have served in this Congress for 9 years. I served as a United States
Air Force officer for 7 years and on the national security staff at the
White House for 2. In my 9 years in the Congress, I have never been
more concerned about Congress's failure to act than I am today.
This is absolutely critical to the country to fix, and the only
people that can fix it are Members of the United States Congress. We
cannot work around this law. We have to fix this law, and it is
squarely in our laps to fix it.
The leadership on both sides of the aisle and the Committee on
Intelligence on both sides of the aisle have been briefed in detail
about the problems our intelligence community is facing, that we have
blinded them and forced them to stick their fingers in their ears
because of anomalies in technology that have changed faster than we
have been willing to change
[[Page H8416]]
the law. And every one of us knows that it has already imperiled
American lives. And yet this House sits here and does nothing,
absolutely nothing, when we know that lives are at risk. We must allow
our intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist communications without a
warrant in the United States when they are listening to foreign
communications.
How the heck did we get ourselves in this place in the first place?
In 1978, almost all long-haul communications were over the air, and for
foreign intelligence collection, you didn't need a warrant; almost all
short-haul communications, local calls, were over a wire, and you did.
Now, because the technology has changed, the situation is completely
reversed. Almost all local calls are over the air. There are 230
million cell phones in this country. But that is not where the foreign
intelligence is. Now almost all long-haul communications are over a
wire, and we are forcing our intelligence agencies to go to judges to
get probable cause on some terrorist who is overseas communicating with
another terrorist overseas just because the point of the wiretap is in
the United States. This is stupid and it is imperiling American lives.
The danger is very serious. The Director of National Intelligence,
Mr. McConnell, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee
recently that ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what
we should be getting.''
We all remember where we were the morning of 9/11. We remember whom
we were with, what we were wearing, what we had for breakfast. But I
wager nobody in this room remembers where they were when the British
Government arrested 16 terrorists who were within 48 hours of walking
onto airliners at Heathrow and blowing them up over the Atlantic. That
happened a year ago in August. Within 48 hours, they were within 48
hours, and the tragedy would have been greater than on 9/11. It didn't
happen and you don't remember it because American, British, and
Pakistani intelligence detected the plot before it was carried out.
I have pleaded with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and
with the leadership on both sides of the aisle in this House, and I
pray to God that we will not need another 9/11 Commission after another
national tragedy and they will be looking back and saying, Why didn't
the Congress do something? They knew and they failed to act.
Today you have an opportunity to insist that this body act because we
do know we are failing to protect this country.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to
immediately consider amendments to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's
passion and concern. We are all very concerned for the safety of our
country.
But I think it is critical that we not forget the reason we are here
today. We are here to debate a rule which is very concerned, which
deals with a balanced approach to making our country safer
domestically, to being concerned with putting more police officers on
the street, for increasing funding for Drug Corps, for increasing
funding for science and NASA. That is what we are here to do today.
That is what we are here to debate, and I would strongly urge passage
of this ruling.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me this morning for this rule.
I first want to thank the members of the committee and the
subcommittee for their hard work on this very important bill,
particularly including the part concerning NASA, which I want to speak
about for just a minute. Chairman Obey and Chairman Mollohan have been
tremendously dedicated to assisting me and making good things happen. I
applaud them.
Mr. Speaker, my district includes NASA's Johnson Space Center, the
crown jewel of the Nation's space program. The Johnson Space Center
serves as a key component of the southeast Texas economy, employing the
best and brightest minds who serve as leaders in the sciences,
education, business, and human space exploration, not to mention the
important roles they and their families play in our local communities.
I will aggressively champion the work and dedication of these
hardworking Americans and the many benefits they bring to all of our
districts and our country.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about fiscal responsibility and doing our
best to practice good government, we must be mindful of programs that
are important to fund, those that return more on the taxpayer dollar
and are wise investments. And I can think of no better example than
investing in our future and the future of NASA. Over the years, the
math shows that every dollar invested in the space program is returned
exponentially in the form of new products, new technologies, and new
businesses. Relative to our entire Federal budget, NASA dollars' share
comes to less than 1 percent, about six- or seven-tenths of a percent.
By comparison, Americans spend over $45 billion a year on soft drinks.
NASA research and technologies have provided law enforcement with
advanced equipment to detect suspicious liquids and substances,
protective gear for chemical analysis, safer oxygen tanks for
firefighters, equipment to treat children's cancer, improved cardiac
care techniques, advanced aircraft technology for safer commercial
flights, satellite technology to improve our understanding of the
Earth's climate, and more accurate weather forecasting to better
protect us from natural disasters.
So for less than one-third of our national soft drink budget, NASA
pushes the boundaries of the final frontier, creating commerce,
assisting with education, increasing our economic competitiveness,
enhancing health care, monitoring climate change, building stronger
bonds with our allies, and ensuring the survival of the human race.
So, Mr. Speaker, I kindly ask my colleagues, take a good look at the
myriad ways NASA has benefited our great Nation. For me and for many of
the folks who work at NASA and on NASA matters on a day-to-day basis,
this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it is a matter of keeping
America at the top of the space race and continuing the unparalleled
legacy of achievement that so many NASA employees and partners have
achieved.
{time} 1215
So I look forward to continuing to work with the committee members,
the conferees and all my colleagues to increase NASA funding. I
appreciate the work of the Rules Committee, and I ask all of our
colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Let me talk about this process of defeating the previous question so
we can take up the amendment regarding the FISA Act.
This does not slow down the process at all. I want to repeat that,
Mr. Speaker; this does not slow down the process at all. It simply
makes in order, with the appropriate waivers, to discuss the amendment
that was described by Mrs. Wilson from New Mexico.
This is a very, very serious issue. It has been described by a number
of people how important this is to our Intelligence Community. And by
definition, it falls into the area of secure knowledge. But for those
that are on the committees of jurisdiction, those that hear this on a
regular basis, we need to act on it sooner than later. And we can act
on it today without slowing down the process whatsoever by defeating
the previous question, voting ``no'' on the previous question.
I will be submitting an amendment that will be made in order, with
the appropriate waivers, and we can debate the issue. It sounds to me,
Mr. Speaker, that there is strong bipartisan support in order to
achieve this end that has been described. We have the opportunity to do
it now. We ought to do it before the August recess.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give
Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law
to ensure our Intelligence Community has the tools that they need to
help protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the
text
[[Page H8417]]
of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has presented
us with a bill that will provide funding agencies related to Commerce,
Justice and Science for the fiscal year 2008.
The bill contains a higher overall allocation than was requested by
the President, but with very good reason. By all measures this bill
will have a real, tangible impact on all Americans, improving their
daily lives in many ways. It funds the Economic Development
Administration, Weed & Seed program, prescription drug monitoring,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the Census Bureau, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and
community-oriented police services.
And I would just like to mention in that regard, from a personal
perspective, in my community in which I live, there is a small police
department, 20 officers; that as a result of the community-oriented
police in New Hartford, New York, they were able to get three
additional police officers, increase their technology significantly.
That's a 15 percent increase in officers to that department. The COPS
program makes our streets safer.
The Drug Corps program is a phenomenal program that this bill will
continue to fund. And I would urge any of my colleagues in Congress to
someday sit through a Drug Corps graduation program. When they see
that, and they see the testimonies of the people who have finished, and
listen to their families talk about how devastating drug addiction has
been to their family and how this program has helped them, they would
strongly support this bill and strongly support the Drug Corps program.
In short, H.R. 3093 provides critical funding for programs that keep
our streets safe, our economy prosperous, and allows our scientists to
continue studying global warming and climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a vote of ``yes'' on the previous
question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution insert the following:
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment
printed in section 5 of this resolution if offered by
Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All
points of order against consideration of the amendment
printed in section 5 are waived.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is
amended to read as follows--
`(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
`(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,
or other surveillance device for acquiring information by
intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known
person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States
under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for
law enforcement purposes; or
`(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any
communication under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and
all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located
within the United States.'.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adoption of the resolution (if ordered); and suspending the rules with
respect to H.R. 2929; H. Res. 345; and H. Con. Res. 187.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 195, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 716]
YEAS--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
[[Page H8418]]
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Baker
Bishop (UT)
Carson
Clarke
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Israel
LaHood
Marshall
Melancon
Murtha
Stark
Wamp
Young (AK)
{time} 1243
Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HELLER of Nevada and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. MARKEY, BOUCHER and MATHESON changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________