[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8625-H8639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 562 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. 3093.
{time} 1032
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. 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, with Mr. Snyder
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
25, 2007, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 85, line
24.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be used for
litigation expenses incurred in connection with cases
commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act against
employers on the grounds that such employers require
employees to speak English.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, as mentioned, the EEOC, which is the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has accused the Salvation Army
of allegedly discriminating against two of their employees in a Boston
area thrift store for requiring them to speak English on the job.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would prevent the EEOC from using any
appropriated funds to initiate a civil action or file a motion in any
courts on the grounds that the organization, in this case the Salvation
Army, requires an employee to speak English while engaged in work.
The question I have is, how do you discriminate against a person who
speaks English on the job? This amendment was prompted by this lawsuit
filed in April by the EEOC against the Salvation Army, which has helped
thousands of people in countries all over the world. Can't you hire
people today who speak English? The two employees were given 1 year to
learn English in order to speak the language you and I are speaking in
the House today and the language spoken by our coworkers; however,
these folks failed to try to learn even some basic English and were
fired.
Even though the Salvation Army clearly posted the rule and gave the
two employees a year to learn English, the EEOC lawyers filed a lawsuit
seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in monetary damages to
compensate the employees for ``the emotional pain, suffering and
inconvenience'' they suffered by being asked to speak English to the
best of their ability while on the job.
In 2003, a Federal judge in Boston upheld the Salvation Army's policy
requiring workers to speak English while on the job. However, the EEOC
did not like this ruling, so they are continuing to harass the
Salvation Army.
Now, the Salvation Army, as we all know, is a Christian evangelical
organization whose sole mission is to help the downtrodden, the blind,
the sick and anyone else in need. Their personnel standing on cold
street corners during Christmastime is something to behold, ringing a
bell on behalf of the poor. They collect and sell donated clothes and
household items in their thrift stores to raise money for the poor,
operate soup kitchens, and hire people that no one else will.
Since 1865, this organization has lived by Christ's teaching that as
we do unto the least of our people, we do unto the Lord. Now this
organization is in trouble for insisting its employees learn to speak
English in order to better serve these lofty goals. Remember, the
Salvation Army was trying to help their employees by encouraging them
to simply learn the English language.
EEOC has crossed the line in its overzealous pursuit of companies
that require English in the workplace. Only Congress can bring this
organization back to its intended mission. If we don't, the continued
proliferation of English-related lawsuits will cause employers facing
close hiring decisions to hire defensively, to the detriment of new
immigrants with marginal English proficiency. While the children of
immigrants typically learn English in our school system, adult
immigrants are most likely to learn or improve language skills for
work-related reasons often through programs that are simply hosted by
the employers themselves.
This arrangement is ordinarily a win-win situation. The immigrant is
encouraged to gain a full knowledge skill that improves his work
efforts and civic engagement, and the employer benefits from having
employees that can communicate with one another. So the EEOC's policy
takes a mutually beneficial situation and injects the constant fear of
litigation on employers. Most importantly, since the EEOC's funds are
fungible, every dollar it uses to pursue these cases is a dollar not
being spent on pursuing the kind of discrimination that the EEOC was
originally created to combat.
These are our tax dollars, my colleagues, yours and mine, paying the
salaries of the EEOC lawyers, who file endless lawsuits, while the
Salvation Army must use its own funds, funds that would be better used
helping the poor, instead of hiring more attorneys to fight these kinds
of cases in court. The EEOC should instead focus its limited resources
on the current backlog of 54,265 complaints, instead of wasting time
and taxpayer money on policies that serve to achieve unity in our
country.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and help protect
the charities like the Salvation Army.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody ought to speak English in
this country, and I think we ought to have
[[Page H8626]]
policies that encourage it. What I don't believe is I don't believe
that the Congress of the United States has any business whatsoever
predeciding a court case, and when the Congress ahead of time tells the
EEOC that they cannot even bring a suit, that means that Congress is
substituting political judgment for legal judgment on an issue that
ought to be decided in a court of law.
Congress has the right to pass legislation saying whatever it wants
about immigration and about who is going to get Federal aid, things
like that. But it is dead wrong, it is wrong morally, it is wrong
constitutionally, for the Congress to prejudge what the outcome of a
court case is going to be. And if they deny funds to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Agency in this government, the agency that is
supposed to enforce civil rights laws, if they deny funds to that
agency on a hit-or-miss basis based on what can get a majority on this
House floor, God help us all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Stearns-
Blackburn amendment to protest the actions of a rogue government agency
that really is out of control, and I thank Mr. Stearns for his good
work and his good efforts on this with us.
The EEOC, as we have heard, it is taxpayer funded, and it is tasked
with eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Now, unfortunately,
the organization's actions are speaking louder than their words, and
certainly they are not in step with the mission that they are
instructed to meet. What we see is an agency that is waging war against
private employers who have English-speaking policies and English-only
language policies in their workplace and with their workforce.
Now, as my colleague from Florida has said, the situation we have
discussed is in 2004, we had two employees from a Massachusetts
Salvation Army Thrift Store. They were instructed to learn English
within 1 year to comply with that organization's English-only language
policy on the job. The employees refused to comply or even to make a
good-faith effort. I think that everyone would like to see them make a
good-faith effort to learn the language. And they were summarily
dismissed in December of 2005. So they had that full year.
Interestingly enough, the two employees were able to navigate their
way through the bureaucratic system and get the EEOC to file a
discrimination lawsuit against the Salvation Army in April 2007,
despite their limited command of the English language. The turn of
events would be laughable if it were not true, and if the consequences
were not as grave as they are.
Yet, in 2006 alone, roughly 200 charges were filed alleging
discrimination due to English-language-only policies in different
workplaces. This explosion of claims against workplace English is a 612
percent increase since 1996.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is one of the things that is of concern to
us; 612 percent. That is the increase in these claims against American
small businesses, against the businesses that are employing our
citizens. We have gone from 32 cases in 1996 to 228 in 2002, according
to the EEOC alone, and what we see is those misplaced priorities of the
EEOC.
As my colleague previously mentioned, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission has a backlog of 45,265 cases right now. They
expect that that backlog will grow to 67,108 complaints in fiscal year
2008.
Mr. Chairman, it does not take an organizational genius to figure
this out. What we see is people are not getting their workload done.
What we see is the EEOC is putting their energy on something that they
don't need to be putting it on, and they have those misplaced
priorities, so therefore the items that they are supposed to be
addressing in order to meet their mission are languishing in their in-
box. They are never getting around to addressing those files. So those
are continuing to pile up.
What we see is that they should be taking their resources; they have
plenty of employees, they have plenty of funds. This is not an issue of
them having more money or more resources. This is an issue of them
putting their work and making their priorities where they need to be,
of addressing these problems, kind of getting their nose to the
grindstone, if you will, and getting in behind those cases and getting
them done not over here suing U.S. small businesses that are employing
our citizens, not over here suing the mom-and-pops who have the right,
because they are signing the paycheck, they are paying the payroll
taxes, they establish their workplace policies.
{time} 1045
And they have the right to say we would like you to learn English. We
should be incentivizing them to insist on having those employees learn
English so that they better communicate with their employer and so they
know how to communicate and they are learning by that interaction with
those customers.
We know so well, those of us who have so many small businesses in our
districts, many of these small businesses see these people as true
friends.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the policy that this amendment addresses
is obviously authorizing the policy that the EEOC has followed in this
area through Democratic and Republican administrations. They have had a
consistent position on the employer English-only policies throughout
both Democratic and Republican administrations. This amendment would
undermine that long standing policy. If the gentlelady and the
gentleman want to change that, they ought to take it to the authorizing
committee where they can have hearings and have a full-blown
discussion, rather than trying to change this policy that has been in
place for a long period of time, through both Democratic and Republican
administrations. The amendment should be opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in support of the Stearns amendment. In the
interest of transparency, for a dozen years I was on the board of the
Morristown Salvation Army in New Jersey, and anybody who has been
associated with this organization knows that they work in the trenches
for the poorest of the poor. They do a remarkable job, and they work
with those that are English speakers as well as those who would not
speak English.
It seems to me that the EEOC has been somewhat shopping for another
venue here, while the Salvation Army, I think, is truly doing the
Lord's work. And for them to expend, as apparently they have, tens of
thousands of dollars in some sort of a lawsuit as a result of this EEOC
litigation, I think quite honestly is an absolute travesty.
I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns),
the sponsor of the amendment, and I commend him and others for
supporting this amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman, and let me answer
some of the criticism from that side of the aisle.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) talked about that
this is not a recent problem, that all administrations before with
regard to the EEOC have been following this pattern, and that is not
true. The gentlelady from Tennessee pointed out there has been a 612
percent increase since 1996. In fact, there has been a large increase
just recently. So this is not something that has been going on for the
past 40 years; it is a more recent phenomenon.
So we here in Congress should realize that we have every right to
prejudge. We have three equal branches of government. We have the
executive, judicial and the legislative or Congress. We have the right
to say to the EEOC, which is a government agency, the priorities you
are establishing are wrong. I mean, as I pointed out earlier, this
particular agency has a 54,000-case backlog, and it looks like it is
going to
[[Page H8627]]
go to 64,000. It is going to be a 10,000-case increase.
Should they be spending all of their time trying to intimidate
employers? Employers simply want to hire employees that speak English.
Are the employees going to be so scared that when they hire this
employee they are going to be sued by the EEOC because they are saying
to the employee, ``We think it will be helpful for you to speak English
to our customers''?
But as the Salvation Army did, they said, We will send you to a class
for 1 year and you can learn English. So we will hire you, let you be
trained, and hopefully after a year you will be conversant in English.
These people didn't follow through and didn't even go to the classes.
So what did the Salvation Army do, they simply said, We will have to
fire you.
They talked to them, they counseled them, and then they said, We will
have to let you go because you are not speaking English proficiently
enough so that our customers can understand you, and we are an
organization that simply has a mission to help and serve people, and we
can't communicate with these people because you cannot speak English.
So please go to this class that we are going to pay for and help you
with this training. These people would not go, and so they were fired.
So now the EEOC lawyers are saying to its agency this case is of the
highest priority. We are going to forget these 54,000 cases backlogged
in America, and we are going to go after the Salvation Army.
``God help us'' is the words that Mr. Obey used. I say God help us if
employers in this country cannot hire employees who speak English. We
have every right to judge. This is not morally wrong, as Mr. Obey said,
or constitutionally wrong. This is simply Congress saying set your
priorities EEOC. Let the employers hire people who speak English. And
we support the concept of what the EEOC is trying to do, to enact civil
legislation against people who are discriminated against in the
workplace. We understand that. We accept that. But this is a case of
priorities. This is a case where Congress has every right as an equal
branch to say this is wrong. I commend the chairman from New Jersey for
his support.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for the Lobster
Institute at the University of Maine in Orono, Maine.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities'' is
hereby reduced by $200,000.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike funding for the
Lobster Institute at the University of Maine. We will be debating later
today subsidies for corn, cotton, rice and sugar. This is about
subsidizing lobsters. I frankly think we subsidize corn, cotton and
sugar far too much, but lobster subsidies seem to be out of line as
well.
I think taxpayers are already feeling the pinch, if you will, with
high gas prices and huge deficits, and all of the other things that
they are asked to pay for. But providing hard-earned taxpayer dollars
to the lobster industry should make Members of this body a little red
in the face.
According to the bill, the New England lobster industry will be
receiving $200,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars. The certification
letter does not offer much in explanation of what it would be used for
except to provide resources for the New England lobster industry. What
kind of resources, I think we are justified in asking. This is a
private industry that makes millions and millions of dollars annually.
What possible support should the Federal taxpayer be offering to this
particular industry?
Again, this is one area where Congress, through earmarking, is
circumventing the regular process that we typically go through. It is a
process that I don't like very much. I don't think we ought to be
providing funding to the Federal agencies to give subsidies this way
either. But there are programs at the Federal agencies, programs that
are usually open to competitive bidding where people will submit grant
proposals. But through earmarking like this, we circumvent that process
and we say we know better what we're going to give what amounts to. It
seems like a no-bid contract to a particular industry or business or
group of industries.
So I would think that this simply isn't the way to go. I would submit
that no amount of drawn butter can make this kind of subsidy taste any
better. We simply shouldn't be doing this kind of thing. We need to get
rid of these kinds of earmarks, again, when we know so very little
about what it will go to. We are just told it will provide resources
for the New England lobster industry. This is an industry, like some of
the others we will be discussing later today, that do quite well on
their own. They make millions and millions of dollars. What possible
justification can we have for using Federal taxpayer dollars to
subsidize or to support an industry like this?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by Mr. Flake. This amendment would strike funding for the
Lobster Institute CORE Initiative for the University of Maine, a
program vital to the continuation of the lobster industry.
I will say a few words in a moment about the importance of the
lobster industry, not just to Maine, but to New England and to the
entire Northeast, but I want to go straight to this particular program.
The Lobster Institute's CORE Initiative provides for conservation,
outreach, research and education in order to sustain the lobster. This
is one of the most successfully managed fisheries along the Atlantic
coast. When you look at this from the point of view of the private
sector, this is not a case of a big corporate fishery. The lobster
industry is primarily a small fishery with individual lobstermen who
cannot possibly afford to do the research on the scale that this
institute does. I would say that the institute is funded primarily by
contributions from the industry itself, some people who are
contributing to the research, and through private donations by the
Friends of the Lobster Institute.
But fundamentally, this kind of research done by our land grant
universities is absolutely essential. The University of Maine does work
on wild blueberries. It does work on potatoes. The industry itself
could not possibly sustain industrywide research because those
industries, like the lobster industry, are made up primarily of small
businessmen and -women.
Frankly, it is exactly this kind of public-private partnership that
makes our economy stronger than it ever could be without this support.
Let me give you some examples. The CORE program aims to establish a
unified logical progression of research to address lobster health,
stock assessment and environmental monitoring issues. For example, in
southern New England, we have some very serious disease issues with
some lobsters. We have to be able to track those diseases and make sure
that we understand what is going on.
The program will also develop infrastructure to support lobster
health and habitat research.
{time} 1100
The information that is gathered by the institute is communicated to
the public in many ways. Outreach education conducted by faculty,
students and industry members, as well as conferences, seminars and
workshops
[[Page H8628]]
throughout the region spreads information developed by the institute.
The institute is also home to a lobster library which holds nearly
2,000 journal articles, research reports and informational pamphlets.
Basically, what we're saying is that one of the reasons the lobster
industry is one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the
Northeast is precisely because of this research. And some Federal
contribution, a small contribution, $200,000 is what's at stake here,
is the linchpin that holds this organization together.
A few final concluding comments. The private sector, which is
supported by this research institute, includes jobs for 8,000 fishermen
and countless other jobs for additional businesses such as dealers,
distributors, boat builders, marine suppliers and a variety of tourism-
related businesses.
Throughout the Nation, the lobster industry has an economic impact of
somewhere between $2.4- and $4 billion a year, with 10,000 commercial
lobster licenses issued each year. It's ranked, American lobster, I
would say Maine lobster, but, you know, who's quarrelling here,
American lobster is ranked third on the U.S. seafood export list,
proving that it's essential to our economy.
In Maine, we have 5,800 licensed lobstermen, and the catch from Maine
lobstermen makes up approximately 70 percent of all U.S. landings.
I would just say in conclusion, this may seem like a small amount of
money to a small research institute, but it holds together a private
industry of great economic importance not just to Maine, but to the
Northeast and to all of our oceans-related industries.
That's why I strenuously object to this amendment. I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman from
Maine's program. This funding supports scientific staff who monitor the
health of Maine lobster fisheries, a crucial industry in his area and a
crucial resource for the whole country.
The funding provides infrastructure to improve science research
efforts in this regard. Funding is crucial to understanding the health
of the lobster fishery industry, and he stresses that in his remarks.
This amendment is supported by the subcommittee. It's a good earmark,
it's a good project, and this Member has concluded that it's essential
in his area and to support this very important industry in his area.
The subcommittee strongly supports this Member's project in this
regard.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, but certainly know where his heart is because
he's been diligent and persistent.
The directed spending included in our committee's report augments
and, in some cases, enhances the administration's own earmarks with
congressional priorities, which is entirely appropriate. Funding
recommendations included in our report were made in full compliance
with the applicable rules and procedures of the House. So there's total
transparency.
On a bipartisan basis, I've worked with Chairman Mollohan in
reviewing all of the requests before the Commerce, Justice and Science
Subcommittee, all of the Member requests, and we recommend funding for
this and other projects which people will try to take out.
We believe these projects have merit, and what's most appropriate is
that Members are willing to come to the floor to defend their projects,
and that's necessary because we need to hear from them as to their
merit. They know their States, and they know their districts, and
that's why we're supporting this process.
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 will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for
meteorological equipment at Valparaiso University in
Valparaiso, Indiana.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities'' is
hereby reduced by $720,000.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is a rather large earmark, $720,000.
It's for Federal funding for meteorological equipment at Valparaiso
University in Valparaiso, Indiana.
Growing up, I was told the best way to tell the weather was to stick
your arm out the window of the vehicle as we were going down a farm
road. This seems to me to be Congress's way of sticking their arm into
taxpayers' back pocket and getting their wallet.
The earmark description in the certification letter submitted said
the earmark would fund the equipment as a teaching tool for the
university's meteorology department and provide weather information to
entities in northwestern Indiana and surrounding areas.
This university is a coed, 4-year, private university located, as I
said, in northwestern Indiana. It's ranked by the U.S. News and World
Report as one of the top universities in the Midwest. Its endowment is
in excess of $143 million.
Again, why do we fund earmarks for institutions that are as flush as
this one? Why do we dole out any Federal money to any private
institution such as this, with a generous endowment already there?
When we approve earmarks like this, we as an institution are
bypassing the competitive grant process that already exists for funding
educational and research institutions.
In 1950, the National Science Foundation, an independent Federal
agency, was created by legislation with the intent of promoting the
progress of science and advancing national health and welfare by
supporting research and education in all fields of science and
engineering.
In the past, the Federal Government has awarded more than $400
billion in the form of competitive grants; $400 billion has been given
out by the NSF over the years. This agency was created with a specific
purpose of giving out grants like this.
Over the course of this year, the Division of Atmospheric Sciences,
an office within NSF, has awarded more than $2 million to fund research
for meteorological experiments. Federal funding exists for the
sponsor's earmark. This grant process should be respected.
Again, we are going outside of the process. There's a process that we
have established, that we have caused to be established in the Federal
agencies to give out money in this regard, and here we're saying, well,
we're not going to go through that. Perhaps this university, I don't
know, perhaps it applied for a grant and didn't get it. Perhaps it has
received other grants, I just don't know, but what I do know is we are
giving what amounts to a no-bid contract where one member of the
Appropriations Committee is going to say, I'm going to designate or
earmark money for this institution and bypass the process that we have
set in place. And I just don't think that's right.
If we don't like the process that's been established, let's change
it. Let's tell the Federal agencies, you need to have a broader pool,
you need to give more grants out to small colleges, you need to do
this, you need to do that, but let's establish a process and then
follow it rather than circumvent it. And this, I see, is circumventing
the process.
This bill, the underlying bill today, funds the National Science
Foundation at a level of more than $6 billion. What is the purpose of
funding an agency like this and telling that agency to
[[Page H8629]]
give out grants on a competitive basis if we're going to go around it
and give out our own grants from Congress? It just doesn't seem right.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise
in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike funds in this bill
for the meteorological equipment for Valparaiso University.
I first want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Mollohan,
as well as the ranking member Mr. Frelinghuysen, for their
consideration of this important project.
Mr. Chairman, this earmark is relative to two issues. The first is
the safety of people who live throughout the Upper Midwest.
A key element to strengthening Valparaiso's meteorology program, as
the gentleman from Arizona is correct that Valparaiso is an exceptional
university, is the acquisition of Doppler radar. Doppler radar at VU
will be very beneficial to the millions of people living along the
southern shore of Lake Michigan because that area is currently
underserved by pinpoint weather forecasting. In addition to Doppler
radar, VU will begin daily weather balloon launches. As the only
balloon site in Indiana, Valparaiso University will supply critical
data to the meteorological community.
The notoriously unpredictable weather conditions in this area, lake-
effect snow in the winter and severe thunderstorms and tornados in the
spring and summer months, make the presence of Doppler radar and data
gathered from the balloon station critically important to the region.
The amendment also deals with the issue of strengthening our future
by investing in science and the young people in our Nation. The global
economy is nothing if not competitive, and in order for the United
States to remain at the forefront of scientific innovation, we must
work with our universities to develop and maintain world-class
scientific programs.
Valparaiso is currently home to a nationally ranked meteorological
program, and we must leverage this resource to advance our national
scientific interests, and I believe the university is well positioned
to use the funds to continue to be a national and global leader in this
field.
The procurement of the latest industry standard equipment by VU's
meteorological program is also vital to helping students become
familiar with the technology they will encounter after graduation as
they go on to pursue careers that include the Air Force, NASA and the
National Science Foundation. The purchase of new equipment will enable
Valparaiso students to conduct more undergraduate research, as they
will have access to a greater variety of data and the ability to
archive it.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and again thank the
Chair and ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. First of all, let me compliment the gentleman from
Indiana on his project. We are here arguing, debating, describing,
justifying, and questioning the merits of this particular project.
However you want to describe it, the gentleman who offers the
amendment, his basis of offering these amendments is, on the one hand,
that we shouldn't be doing this. We talk about that on almost every
amendment, the fact that indeed it is the job of the United States
Congress and particularly the House of Representatives in the first
instance under Article I of the Constitution to do just exactly this.
This is our job. This is what we do--we provide funding for the United
States of America.
The gentleman, I'm paraphrasing, said one Member of the body or of
the Appropriations Committee or one Member of the Congress brings a
project forward. Well, there's nobody in the Congress who would bring a
project forward for this gentleman's congressional district if it were
not this gentleman.
And then we get to the merits of the particular project. This one
seems eminently justifiable; funding for equipment to train young
people in forecasting. If you believe in government participation in
education, that's what we do, and this is how we can empower this
institution, this educational institution, so that they can bring
excellent training for weather forecasting, which I think we all have
to stipulate is extremely important for the Midwest in light of the
kind of weather conditions they have.
So let me compliment the gentleman from Indiana for his project, and
for bringing it to us. We have looked at it carefully, and perhaps we
should say thank you to the gentleman who raises the amendment for
giving the gentleman from Indiana an opportunity to stand up and
discuss and describe his amendment for us and for his constituency.
{time} 1115
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from
Arizona, let me associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Mollohan.
I have every confidence, and even more so, from hearing from the
gentleman from Indiana, that this project has merit. He has had the
opportunity to expand on what we saw in a digested form, and I think he
has made a strong case for this project. He is willing to put his name
on the project, which means his integrity is backing that project.
I salute him for what he is doing. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Let me simply say that it's often said through earmarking
we are simply asserting our right and the responsibility we have as
Members of Congress under article 1. Under article 1, we certainly have
the power of the purse.
The problem is, I think the contemporary practice of earmarking, when
you bring a bill to the floor that has over 1,500 earmarks, you
diminish that responsibility that you have, because we go around or
circumvent the careful process of authorization, appropriation, and
oversight that is a time-honored practice and hallmark of this
institution. When we earmark, we get away from that and not enhance it.
That's the reason for bringing these amendments forward.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, and just for the record, the
bill has approximately 1,100 earmarks, which is about one-fourth of
what we had last year. We are, indeed, making some progress in reducing
the number.
In any case, Members come forward to defend their earmarks, which I
think is entirely appropriate. There is far more transparency, far less
in the way of earmarks. I think the process has been vastly improved.
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 amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the National Textile Centers.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding for
the National Textile Center. The earmark description in the various
certification letters submitted to the committee by various sponsors,
and this is one that is sponsored by a number of Members, I understand,
says that the earmark will fund the development of a National Textile
Center; specifically, the funds will be used to conduct research and
development and improve technologies.
[[Page H8630]]
The Web site for the National Textile Center states that it is a
consortium of eight universities, Auburn, Clemson, Cornell, Georgia
Institute of Technology, North Carolina State University, University of
California Davis, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and
Philadelphia University, that share human resources, equipment and
facilities. This consortium serves the U.S. fiber-textile-retail
complex industries.
It's not at all clear what amount this program is to be funded. The
committee report language says funding for two textile-related
programs, but the proposed funding amount is nowhere to be found in the
text of the bill or the committee report.
The manager's amendment recommended that the U.S. foreign and
commercial service account be increased by $5 million to $245,720,000
in order to fund ``two textile-related programs.'' We can only infer
that this increase will fund this program and another program, but
there is no way for us to be certain. Inquiries made to the relevant
subcommittee failed to clarify the matter.
Members of Congress as stewards of the taxpayer's dollars, as
stewards, need and deserve more information to make informed decisions.
Beyond the transparency issues here, I simply don't agree here,
again, with this picking winners and losers here. I understand the
textile industry has undergone great transformation with jobs, a lot of
jobs going overseas. There is great difficulty there. I don't minimize
that. That is true with a lot of industries.
In my district and elsewhere, a lot of people would like to receive
funding to help their industries transition. We simply can't do it
everywhere.
Some Internet searching on the National Textile Center indicated the
center already exists and has received generous funding in the past. A
press release from the center touted that more than $9 million in
Federal funds were received in 2001. That, again, is a little confusing
when we are told that this will fund the development of a national
textile center that seems to already exist.
But anyway, again, here, this is an example of a program we have over
the Department of Commerce that we have used that funds programs like
this. I simply don't see the need to earmark additional funds to
supplant or to replace or to augment funds that have already been
appropriated and for which there is a process that has been established
for competitive grants to be given.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am joined by 11
colleagues from North Carolina, as well as colleagues from several
other States, in requesting fiscal year 2008 funding for the National
Textile Center. I want to say to the gentleman introducing this
amendment that if there is, in fact, any lack of transparency or any
confusion about our intent, I would be happy to clear that up.
We do indeed intend for this funding to go to the National Textile
Center, which has been established, as the gentleman acknowledged, for
a number of years. In fact, it has received funding since fiscal year
1992. It is a center that involves a number of universities and has
expanded since that time. And it's a center that has a well-established
track record.
The National Textile Center is just what the name suggests. It's a
national program for a national industry that affects our national
competitiveness. There is a consortium of eight leading research
universities that participate: Auburn, Clemson, Cornell, Georgia Tech,
North Carolina State, Philadelphia University, University of California
Davis, and University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
Now, any of us from North Carolina or other traditional textile-
producing States are all too accustomed to news of textile operations
closing their doors. Some may be shortsighted enough to suggest that
the textile industry is unworthy of investment, given the loss of
manufacturing jobs over the past decade.
I and my colleagues come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The
textile industry is a major player still, and will continue to be a
major player in the U.S. economy. It employs 600,000 workers
nationwide, and it contributes almost $60 billion to the national GDP.
It's true that many lower-skilled and lower-paid jobs have left our
States, but the domestic textile industry is undergoing a remarkable
transformation. The research provided by the National Textile Center is
an initial factor in that transformation. It's helping advance the
industry in new directions, providing new, higher-paying jobs,
increasing U.S. competitiveness in the process.
As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, I know firsthand about the new fabrics and fibers that are
protecting our first responders in new and threatening situations.
That's just one example. The suits worn in this Chamber, the next
generation of suspension bridges--there is a long list of products and
technologies that this research consortium is going to help shape.
The new textile products and the processes created by this research
are valued at three times the Federal investment to date, so it's
certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under these vital
projects.
Mr. Chairman, the National Textile Center is needed by a national
industry. The National Textile Center is wanted and welcomed by the
Department of Commerce. And the National Textile Center was requested
by more Members than any other project in this bill. It's a worthy
recipient of Federal funding, and I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to earmarks, it's easy for me
to embrace my earmark as good government and reject your earmark as
wasteful pork. By the same token, it's easy for you all to embrace your
respective earmarks as good government and reject mine as useless,
wasteless pork. That probably amounts to hypocrisy, but it is
nonetheless a political fact of life.
Now, when you talk about the textile industry, I become very
subjectively involved. My late momma was a machine operator in a
hosiery mill. She later worked for the Blue Bell Corporation, which was
the predecessor to the Wrangler and the VF Corporation. Her job was to
sew pockets on overalls, a tedious, demanding job, before the days of
air conditioning, I might add. So when people gang up on the textile
industry, they are ganging up on my momma. It bothers me.
We could talk all day here. Many of my friends from North Carolina,
we represent what was recognized as the buckle of the textile belt.
It's a beleaguered industry, and we don't need to be piling on at this
juncture.
My friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price) has already suggested the
significance, but let me repeat it.
The National Textile Center, NTC, and the Textile/Clothing Technology
Corporation, [TC]2, play a critical role in helping the U.S. textile
and apparel industry, which currently employs over 600,000 workers
nationwide and contributes nearly $60 billion to the Nation's gross
national product on an annual basis to compete with textile
manufacturers in other countries.
It should also be noted that the industry is a primary supplier of
employment to women and minority workers, with many of these jobs
located in depressed and rural areas as well as major inner cities.
The NTC is proven and provides a highly effective structure for
maximizing fundamental research and development efforts of value to the
textile and apparel industrial sector. The value of new textile
products and processes that have been created by NTC research is over
$300 million, nearly three times the Federal investment in NTC to date.
[TC]2 is engaged in helping to transform the U.S. textile and apparel
industry into a highly flexible supply chain, capable of responding to
rapidly changing market demands. During calendar year 2006, 60 percent
of [TC]2's
[[Page H8631]]
annual budget was supplied by the private sector. [TC]2 expects at
least 55 percent of its 2007 funding to be provided by the private
sector. To date, the public investment alone in [TC]2 has produced
technology advancement valued in excess of $375 million, a return of
more than 400 percent.
These programs do not specifically benefit any particular
congressional district. They are an important element of our national
textile industry which once led the world but, as has been noted, is
now struggling to keep pace.
The textile industry needs these programs and our support, which have
proven to be a wise investment in the past. This is why this amendment
should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I think we come to the floor not because we
feel like Mr. Flake's amendment is likely to pass, but he provides a
unique opportunity for us to talk to each other and the American people
about some of the problems and stresses that are taking place in our
country. There are three points that I want to make.
First of all, this is not a local issue for me. The appropriation,
the consortium, is of eight leading textile research universities in
Alabama, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Not one of those universities is
located in my congressional district. This is not a local pork barrel
request for those of us who are rising.
Second, I want to make the point that Mr. Coble and I, on a
bipartisan basis, have been the co-Chairs of the furnishings caucus,
which the textile industry provides a major base for in North Carolina
and in other parts of the country. This is not something that's just
about textiles. It is about a broader-based loss of jobs and employment
opportunities and a severe impact on our economy and various economies
in multiple States that goes well beyond just the textile industry. I
hope Mr. Flake recognizes that.
{time} 1130
The third point I want to make is a broader point, because it is
raised by the gentleman from Arizona in a sequence of amendments. He
has made the argument that somehow we are better off to let the Federal
Government be making these decisions rather than trying to direct these
appropriations through this process to local communities.
Now, that's an interesting argument for a person to be making who in
most cases makes the counterargument that States rights are more
important than Federal rights. If anybody knows what the priorities
ought to be in North Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama, South Carolina,
it should be the people who are representing those areas, and I would
have to say Presidents, administrations, Democrat and Republican, have
not paid sufficient attention to the plight of the textile industry,
the furnishings industry, the loss of manufacturing jobs that we pay in
our local communities.
So for somebody to make the argument that we shouldn't be involved in
the process when the decisions that are being made are impacting our
local communities, I don't understand, especially a gentleman who has
consistently and long term supported the notion of States rights.
So I think this is an appropriate thing for us to be doing, not only
in this amendment context, but in most of the contexts, in essentially
all of the contexts. I even supported his Republican colleague's
Christmas tree amendment because I thought he knew more about the
Christmas tree industry in his local community than anybody was ever
going to know on a national basis about the importance of Christmas
trees to his local economy. These are things that we are uniquely
situated to understand and advocate for, and I would hope that our
colleagues would strongly and resoundingly defeat this amendment, for
those three purposes and others.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Some people may have thought
that since I have supported Mr. Flake on a number of amendments, that
this was sort of a centrifuge way for me to help defeat the amendment
because it might lose support, given the fact that I have supported
some of his amendments and not supported others. But, rather, I did
request an earmark. It is one of the seven or eight earmarks that have
been combined together in this in support of the textile center because
the textile center exists in about eight different locations around the
country, eight institutions, one of them the University of California
at Davis. That part of UC Davis which is part of this is actually not
in my district. It's in the gentleman, Mr. Thompson's, district. But I
am convinced of the worthiness of this request for a slightly different
reason than has been mentioned on the floor to this time.
One of the key areas that the textile center funds go to support in
the work and research that's done at the UC Davis center is in the area
of personal protection, research improving the functional clothing for
homeland security and occupational safety. What do we mean by that?
Well, there are what are known as biocidal Nomex fabrics, which have
been developed for firefighters, for first responders and for military
personnel in collaboration with the National Personal Protective
Technology Laboratory. In collaboration with the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection, research has enhanced the safety and
comfort of firefighters' uniforms by improving and redesigning the
fabrics and clothing. Biocidal textiles, and biocidal means that there
is something that is in the textile itself, the product itself, which
can kill certain kinds of things, substances which would be harmful to
those who are wearing them. This is dedicated research for this
specific purpose. Biocidal textiles, including protective masks, have
been designed and developed for health care and other workers,
resulting from interdisciplinary research teams, which include social
and physical scientists, public health and environmental researchers.
So while there are many reasons to support this amendment from the
standpoint of those that are attempting to help an industry that has
had difficult times, I rise in support of the very specific research
that's being done as part of the textile center operation at the
University of California at Davis which goes to protecting those folks
who respond as first responders when we have explosions, when we have
fires. It is not just being said to come up with some extraordinary
reason to support this. This is actual research being done that has
produced products that has made it safer for our first responders.
One of the things I have requested from anybody who has asked me to
put forth an earmark request is show me the Federal nexus. This to me
is clearly a Federal nexus. This is research that supports first
responders all over the country. It's concentrated research that means
it is done on a far better basis than otherwise would be possible. It
enhances the final product. And in that way, it seems to me, it is a
substantial, reasonable application of Federal funds for a Federal
purpose.
For that reason, even though I have great respect for the gentleman
from Arizona, whom I think has done a great job, and I have referred to
him publicly because of his pleasant demeanor as he approaches this
difficult task as Don Quixote with couth, I still would have to say
with all due respect, I must oppose his amendment.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment and move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you.
For many of my colleagues this is just another earmark. For me this
is somewhat personal because the first job that I ever held right out
of high school before I went to college was in a textile plant. That
was when they were plentiful in North Carolina and really
[[Page H8632]]
across the Southeast. Hard work, in a lot of cases it was dirty work,
but it was honorable work, and it made a difference in people's lives.
The National Textile Center, or NTC, as you have already heard,
really is a national initiative. It's not a localized project. It's a
project that has already made a difference. It will continue to make a
difference. And as you have heard, it's a consortium of eight leading
textile research universities. One of those is in my State. Actually
one of the universities happens to be in my district, an outstanding
university, North Carolina State University. But each of these States
making a contribution, or the universities in these States. They're
working to advance every aspect of the textile industry, from fiber
production to marketing, through research, education, and, more
importantly, industrial partnerships.
That's the kind of thing we ought to be promoting here. We ought to
be about getting people to work together. That's what this is about.
Yet we have an amendment that says, no, we don't want you to work
together. We'd just as soon you have those silos. We argue on this
floor daily about knocking down silos and getting people to work
together.
The National Textile Center was established really to achieve that
one goal, but three others:
It was to develop new materials, innovative and improved
manufacturing procedures and integrated systems essential to the
success of a modern fiber, fabric and fabricated products manufacturing
enterprise.
Secondly, to provide trained personnel. It's important today as the
industry changes to have people who can affect the new industry,
because it is a high-tech industry today, and to develop those
industrial partnerships and technology transfer mechanisms.
And, finally, to strengthen the Nation's textile research and
education efforts.
Just yesterday I had a large manufacturer of textiles in my office.
Twenty-four plants. He closed one in the western part of North
Carolina. Now, for some people that might not make a difference, but
for about 300 people that lost their jobs, that's trauma. Their lives
have been changed. This is a way we can help that situation. We've lost
our shoe industry overseas. Much of our textiles have gone. We are now
about trying to reclaim some of it.
Now in its 14th year of activity, the center has made numerous
contributions to its constituents, helping to keep the textile industry
economically viable by providing a knowledge-based, competitive,
cutting-edge opportunity. It enjoys widespread industry support and a
partnership across the States.
As has been stated already, this industry is still alive. Six hundred
thousand workers in America are still employed in the textile industry,
contributing nearly $60 billion to the national gross domestic product
on an annual basis. Research has already provided, as you have heard,
uniforms and opportunities for our first responders. They're in the
process in a broader sense of creating fabrics that are self-
decontaminating to protect against biological and chemical hazards.
These are things we ought to be doing. And, yes, we ought to be doing
them in a way that we work together so that at multiple universities
and the bright minds we have across this country today can work
together to make a difference.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I ask this body to defeat it
resoundingly.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment, and
I'm sure that my friend and colleague from Arizona means well in this
endeavor. But I must say that I support the National Textile Center.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our domestic textile manufacturers are
facing tremendous competition from around the world, and much of that
is due to the way that our trade laws in this country are structured.
And it's not the fault of our domestic manufacturers. The only way we
can remain competitive against cheap labor in these foreign countries
is through cutting-edge technology.
The National Textile Center strengthens our Nation's efforts by
bringing together diverse research and also those in the industry so
that our textile producers can produce to lead the world in technology.
So the end results, therefore, will be workers in the United States can
continue to produce the highest-quality products and in the most
efficient manner.
This center that we're discussing today, the National Textile Center,
provides real-world applications that are needed to make sure that the
textile industry in America survives. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I
rise to support this center and to oppose the amendment that is being
offered before us at this time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. While I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I
would like to yield him time because there have been a number of other
speakers.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be very brief.
One of the gentlemen mentioned that we in Congress simply shouldn't
let the Federal Government spend this money. The last time I checked,
we are the Federal Government. We're one branch of it, and it's our job
to appropriate money to another; that is, to actually spend that money.
We don't spend that money here. We don't write the checks. That's done
by the Federal agencies. Our role is to provide oversight and to
authorize the programs.
{time} 1145
And so I'm not advocating at all that we step back. I'm advocating
that we actually go to the time-honored practice of authorization,
appropriation, and oversight. And that allows us to actually go into
these Federal agencies and really provide good oversight.
But I can tell you, it's very difficult to provide oversight for
example for the Defense bill. Last year or the year before, I believe,
we provided an earmark in the Defense bill for a museum in New York, in
the Defense bill.
How can you provide good oversight with any straight face, go to the
Defense Department and say, we think that you should have spent more
money on body armor for our troops in Iraq. Oh, but by the way, we
directed you to spend $2 million on a museum in New York. It just
doesn't seem right to me. And so I think, frankly, we cheapen our role
when we, the contemporary practice of earmarking, I think, has
cheapened the role of Congress and moved us away from authorization,
appropriation, and oversight. So that will be my response, and I would
urge support for the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman alludes to the Defense Department. He could save a lot
more than $2 million for the United States Government if he turned his
attention to the Defense Department and some of the contracting
activities that are certainly going on in Iraq. And perhaps that's
something he will want to look at.
But let me say with regard to the textile-designated funding in this
bill, I don't know a project that has actually had more scrutiny, or
more broad-based support than this project. And in a time when our
industries are competing internationally, the textile industry is
particularly under siege around the world. This initiative has probably
saved the textile industry that continues to struggle to exist in this
country. To the extent that this program has been able to save it, the
research and development that has come out of the textile industry's
research can largely take credit for that.
I want to commend the Members who represent these areas. And it's not
one area. It's not two areas. There are eight universities involved in
this, focusing on this and being ahead of the problem enough in order
to be able to fund, promote, and facilitate the research that has
allowed the textile industry to be as competitive as it is around the
world. It is only research, it is only new discoveries, it is only new
materials, new ways of manufacturing
[[Page H8633]]
that have allowed the textile industry in this country to survive. So
actually, these gentlemen are to be commended, each and every one of
them for their foresight in supporting this project. I think I heard
the textile industry has 60,000 employees across this country, and is a
$60 billion industry. This is really a small amount of money which has
had a huge pay-off for the textile industry and the economy of the
country. It's a good project, 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 amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Pence
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Pence:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce the amendments made by subtitle A of title
II of Public Law 107-155.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very straightforward
amendment. It would prohibit funds appropriated in this bill from being
used by the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal penalties
provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly
known as McCain-Feingold. It would, essentially, prevent the Justice
Department from using funds to enforce criminal penalties against
organizations that make electioneering communications under that bill.
The electioneering communications section of McCain-Feingold
prohibits the use of corporate or labor union funds to finance
broadcast advertisements that include the name or depiction of a
Federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days
before a general election. Basically, it restricts the first amendment
rights of Americans, whether they be in right-to-life organizations or
the AFL-CIO or other labor organizations, from lobbying their
Representatives and using the airwaves in those days before elections.
Happily, on June 25 of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in
the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, ruled unconstitutional this
provision of the McCain-Feingold law that prohibits the broadcasting of
such issue advertisements prior to an election, even if those
advertisements reference a Federal candidate, and even if the
advertisements have some electoral effect. It was, in a very real
sense, Mr. Chairman, a huge victory for the first amendment because
it's a major step in restoring the free speech rights to grass-roots
lobbying organizations, left, right, and center.
The ruling allows advocacy groups around the country, like Wisconsin
Right to Life, the freedom to run ads to encourage citizens to contact
their legislators on issues of importance to them. And it reasserts the
principle that the presumption under the law should be in favor of free
expression rather than the muzzling of speech.
Those of us who hailed this ruling and welcomed it as a first step
toward the reversal of McCain-Feingold were encouraged, but we knew
this was not the end of the story. As the sole House plaintiff in the
McConnell v. FEC case that challenged McCain-Feingold, I believe we
must maintain our effort, which is to ensure that that about McCain-
Feingold that intrudes on the first amendment rights of every single
American are challenged. And that's why I'm on the floor today.
The Pence amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin
Right to Life. It simply states that no funds under this bill can be
used to enforce criminal penalties against any organization airing such
an issue advertisement. It further prevents criminal penalties
attendant to the reporting requirements associated with the airing of
such ads. We should not allow criminal penalties to be imposed on
citizens for engaging in protected speech and for not reporting to the
Government about their protected speech.
That is the crux of the Pence amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. PENCE. I'd be pleased to yield.
Mr. NADLER. Is your amendment limited to saying you can't use funds
to enforce criminal penalties against what the Supreme Court ruled
unconstitutional, or does it have broader effect against other
provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill?
Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's question.
In fairness, my amendment says that no funds may be used to force
amendments made subject to title A of title II of Public Law 107-155,
which, according to some, is slightly broader than the Supreme Court
decision. But this is the provision of the law that the Supreme Court
essentially struck down. That's the crux of the Pence amendment.
All of those who claim allegiance to the first amendment, I believe,
should be thrilled with the Wisconsin Right to Life decision and
support the Pence amendment.
I think we still have much to do to reinstate full first amendment
protections to the American people. But I continue to believe we're
badly trampled by McCain-Feingold.
But passing the Pence amendment today in the Congress would simply
reaffirm the essential elements of the Supreme Court's decision in the
Wisconsin Right to Life case. It's an important first step on this
floor. It's one I encourage my colleagues to support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the FEC is planning to issue new
regulations to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that the gentleman
reference. That issue, with regard to mentioning candidates, may be
seen in the run-up to elections. This amendment would not interfere
with that process. Mr. Chairman, we'll accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 83, after line 6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 529. For ``OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN--VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS'' for the
Jessica Gonzales Victims Assistance program, as authorized by
section 101(b)(3) of the Violence Against Women and
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-162), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION--SALARIES AND
EXPENSES'' is hereby reduced by $5,000,000.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase the Violence
Against Women Prevention Programs by $5 million intended to fund a
specific provision, namely the Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance
Program. To offset this cost the Department of Justice general
activities accounts will be reduced by the same amount, $5 million.
The Jessica Gonzalez program places special victim assistants to act
as liaisons between local law enforcement agencies and victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in
order to improve the enforcement of protection orders. It develops, in
collaboration with prosecutors, courts and victim service providers,
standardized response policies for local law enforcement agencies,
including triage protocols to ensure that dangerous or potentially
lethal cases are identified and prioritized.
Victims of domestic violence need the Jessica Gonzales program
because the current system has undermined the effectiveness of
restraining orders. In Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held
that the police did not have a mandatory duty to make an arrest under a
court-issued protective order
[[Page H8634]]
to protect a woman from her violent husband. This case came as a result
of an incident in 1999 involving the kidnapping of Ms. Gonzalez's
children by her estranged husband. Despite her numerous pleas to the
police to arrest her husband for violating a protection order,
including providing them with information on his whereabouts, the
police failed to do so. Later that night, Mr. Gonzalez murdered their
three children.
The Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program restores some of the
effectiveness of restraining orders that the Supreme Court took away
with its ruling.
This is the first opportunity we have had to grow the Jessica
Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program since it was first funded last year
after its initial authorization in the Violence Against Women Act
reauthorization of 2005 in order to strengthen the effectiveness of
restraining orders.
This program strengthens the efficacy of restraining orders against
the prevalent matter of domestic violence. Tragically, as we know,
violence against women is a pervasive problem which goes beyond class,
culture, age or ethnic background. Every 9 seconds a woman is battered
in the United States, and every 2 minutes someone is sexually
assaulted.
According to the Department of Justice, more than three women are
murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. More than 2\1/2\
million women are victims of violence each year, and nearly one in
three women experience at least one physical assault by a partner
during adulthood. Many more cases go unmentioned as women, fearing to
come forward, leave the assaults unreported.
The Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program helps to enforce
restraining orders and protect women who are victims of domestic
violence, and it is a great step forward from when we authorized it 2
years ago and when we first funded it last year.
Mr. Chairman, we need more funds for this program. I am aware that
this bill, because of the good work of the chairman and the committee
members, includes approximately $430 million to support grants under
the Violence Against Women Act which is $47 million more than the
current budget and $59 million above the President's meager request for
fiscal year 2008.
I'm also aware that in amendments we passed last night, we increased
funding for the Violence Against Women Act by about 40 or $45 million,
and I hope that some of that will survive in conference.
And in light of that, I will now withdraw the amendment, but urge my
colleagues to support the CJS appropriations amount granted to programs
that protect women and their families, especially the Jessica Gonzalez
Victim Assistance Program, and hope that in conferences all of these
matters are hashed out, that a little more money can be spared for this
program, especially in light of the amendments approved last night.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Florida). Without objection, the
amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SAXTON. I would like to engage my distinguished colleague,
Chairman Mollohan, in a colloquy regarding the importance of supporting
ecosystem-based monitoring to better understand water quality and
ecosystem effects on our fisheries.
U.S. fisheries are experiencing increasing pressure as the near-shore
marine ecosystems that sustain them deteriorate due to human activity
and as blooms of jellyfish and other organisms that compete for food
with juvenile fish like summer flounder grow in frequency and
abundance.
{time} 1200
The present trend may well be the cause of significant economic harm
to coastal communities in various areas along the coast. The lack of
rebuilding in one of our most important coastal fisheries, summer
flounder, may be an example of the downside to managing a fishery
without taking into account the ecosystem impacts on its ability to
rebuild. An ecosystem-based approach to management requires ecosystem-
based monitoring. The use of innovative, cost-effective, place-based
data collection systems would provide continuous high-quality data on a
number of important water quality and biological parameters that will
greatly improve the data which fisheries are managed.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will consider allocating some of the
programmatic resources in this bill to support the use of such new
technologies that hold great promise.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for
bringing this important technology, place-based data collection
stations, to my attention. I am pleased to consider this funding need
as we move forward to conference should funds become available.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his
attention to this matter.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act until
the Department of Justice conducts a full review and delivers
to Congress a report on the use of National Security Letters
to collect information on U.S. persons who are not suspected
to be agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in 50
U.S.C. 1801.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee for
including in this act a provision that no funds shall be made available
to authorize or issue a National Security Letter, NSL, in contravention
of current law. That should go without saying, but as we have seen,
apparently not with the current administration.
My amendment asks for an accounting by the Department of Justice of
the FBI's collection and use of information on U.S. persons who are not
suspected of being terrorists or agents of a foreign power before we
provide further funding for the issuance of more National Security
Letters.
This amendment prohibits funds from being used to issue a National
Security Letter under the provisions amended by section 505 of the
PATRIOT Act until the Department of Justice conducts a full review and
delivers a report to Congress on the use of NSLs to collect information
on U.S. persons who are not suspected of being agents of a foreign
power, or terrorists, as that is defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801.
The underlying bill asks for the FBI to conduct a report within 2
months on what has been done to implement the inspector general's
recommendations with respect to NSLs. This would simply ask that that
report be more specific and more inclusive and include the following
information:
How many National Security Letters have been issued; what standards
are used to determine when to seek information on a person who is not
suspected of being an agent of a foreign power; the current guidance as
to what is ``relevant'' to an investigation when the targets are not
suspected of being agents of a foreign power; how that information is
stored; how the information is used; whether the information is used;
whether that information is ever destroyed; whether that information
has led to any substantial leads in terrorism cases; whether that
information has ever been used in criminal cases; and whether that
information has led to any adverse government action against people not
suspected of being enemy agents, agents of a foreign power, or
terrorists.
Almost limitless sensitive private information from communication
providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit agencies can now
be collected secretly by simply issuing a National Security Letter on
an FBI field director's simple assertion that the request is merely
relevant to a national
[[Page H8635]]
security investigation. These communications and records can be of
people who are U.S. citizens who are not suspected of being agents of a
foreign power or terrorists. These communications and records can be
demanded without any court review or any court approval. Worse yet, the
target of the NSL will never know that his communications and records
were inspected by government agents because the company, the financial
agent, the service provider, the bank is barred by law from telling him
or anyone else of the demand. And as we know from the FBI inspector
general's audit, this broad discretion has been abused by the FBI,
whose agents may have violated either the law or internal rules more
than 1,000 times while misusing the authority to issue National
Security Letters.
This recent IG report heightens the clear need for more adequate
checks on the FBI's investigatory powers with respect to NSLs. The FBI
has far-reaching compulsory powers to obtain documents in terrorism
investigations without NSLs. In criminal investigations the FBI can
obtain a search warrant if there is a judicial finding of probable
cause or a grand jury subpoena issued under the supervision of a judge
and a U.S. attorney. And in international terrorism cases, the FBI has
sweeping authority to obtain records under section 215 of the PATRIOT
Act, all this separate from NSLs.
I intend to introduce this week, with Congressman Flake, the National
Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 to address more fully the issues
presented by section 505 of the National Security Letters.
The bill would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI
make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain
to a suspected terrorist or spy. It also gives the recipient of a
National Security Letter an opportunity to obtain legal counsel. It
thus preserves the constitutional right to their day in court.
Already courts have found part of the NSL authority to be too broad
and unconstitutional. The provisions that state that NSL recipients are
forbidden from disclosing the demand to the targeted individual and are
forbidden even from consulting with an attorney have already been
struck down. Another court found the NSL authority to be
unconstitutional on its face because it violates the fourth amendment's
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 would allow the FBI
to continue issuing National Security Letters by correcting the
constitutional deficiencies in the law. This bill would enable the FBI
to obtain documents that it legitimately needs, while protecting the
privacy of law-abiding American citizens.
I ask that my colleagues vote for this amendment so that we can
protect the privacy of U.S. persons who are not terrorists or agents of
terrorists before we provide funding for those broad and sweeping
powers provided under the PATRIOT Act.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I do insist on my point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly lend my support to the
conservative goal of congressional oversight.
I have heard from many individuals and business leaders about section
505. It has caused the financial services sector to work overtime in
complying with the section, and it has laid the foundation for an
explosion in the use of National Security Letters.
Section 505 allows the executive branch to bypass the Constitution's
procedures for search warrants and grants authority that Congress has a
legitimate interest and role in monitoring.
This amendment simply asks the DOJ to conduct a review of their
activities and ensure that the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans
are not getting swept up in the process of keeping our Nation safe.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that protecting this country is a top
priority, but alongside that should be ensuring that our freedom is not
threatened along the way. The best way this body can do that is through
smart and direct oversight. This amendment calls for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey continues his
reservation.
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, and I reserve a point of order.
The FBI's use of National Security Letters is a very important issue.
It should be addressed by authorizing committees. I would like to point
out, which I know the sponsor knows, that it is his Judiciary Committee
that is the authorizing committee, and I respect that, and I know he
exercises a very powerful position on that committee.
This amendment requires the Department of Justice to report on its
use of National Security Letters before they can issue any new National
Security Letters. As we all know, the Department of Justice Inspector
General released a report on the FBI's abuse of the National Security
Letters in March. I hope the Judiciary Committee has been asking the
Department of Justice questions. I am sure they have. Perhaps they
should even mark up a bill to reform the FBI's use of National Security
Letters after they have further studied this issue if they feel the
reforms made by the FBI are not sufficient to date.
Despite past abuses of National Security Letters, we know that they
are an important intelligence tool. We also know that al Qaeda has
reestablished its central organization, training infrastructure, and
lines of global communications, and that the National Intelligence
Estimate has put the United States, in the words of that estimate, ``in
a heightened threat environment status.'' Taking away this important
intelligence tool, these National Security Letters, from the Department
of Justice while they compile a report, given this heightened threat
environment, is not prudent. The use of National Security Letters is a
very important issue that should be considered carefully and not
debated for a few minutes on an appropriations bill.
I urge rejection of the amendment, and I insist on my point of order.
Point of Order
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be made in order if changing existing law
imposes additional duties.''
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. NADLER. Yes. Upon reflection upon the rules, the gentleman is
quite correct in his reading of the rules, and I cannot object to his
objection.
I do express the hope that in the report that the underlying bill
demands that they will include the information requested by this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the
Secretary to conduct a full review and deliver a report. 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.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pence offered an amendment to
the fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act,
the bill we are debating today, just an amendment before, to prohibit
funds in
[[Page H8636]]
the bill from being used to enforce the criminal penalty provisions of
the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, provisions dealing with
electioneering communications. This was debated and accepted by a voice
vote.
It is my intention to ask that that vote be vacated so it can be part
of the 2-minute voting process. And failing that, I will just ask that
the vote be heard in the full Chamber, which would take 15 minutes. I
am not trying to slip one by someone. I just simply want a rollcall
vote on the floor of the House.
Why do I want a rollcall vote? I want a rollcall vote because the
Supreme Court did not rule against the provision of Title II. It did
not say that BCRA was unconstitutional as it related to Title II.
Rather, it stated the provisions were unconstitutional as they applied
to certain advertisements. This ruling means Title II will still be
applied on a case-by-case basis.
Now, what did the campaign finance reform bill seek to do? It sought
to do two things. One, it sought to prevent Members of Congress from
raising money from corporations, labor unions, and unlimited sums from
individuals in what we call ``hard money.''
{time} 1215
That meant to enforce the 1907 law that banned corporate treasury
money; the Tillman Act, the 1947 law banning union dues money; the
Taft-Hartley Act; and the 1974 act, the Campaign Finance Reform bill,
that made it clear you could not get unlimited sums from individuals.
That was one part of the legislation.
The other part of the legislation attempted to deal with hard money
contributions. These are monies from corporations, from unions, dues,
from individuals, unlimited sums. And the way we sought to do that was
we sought to do it by saying that a candidate's name mentioned 30 days
before an election, a primary, and 60 days before a general election
would be deemed campaign expenditures; therefore, no so-called ``soft
money,'' the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and labor
unions, and it sought to say it had to be hard money contributions. So,
Right to Life would have to raise $5,000 from each individual, put it
in a political action committee, and it could spend unlimited sums
based on whatever it raised in their PAC. For instance, the NRA, it has
4 million members, raises $10,000 from each. It could spend $40 million
up to an election. It would be hard money, not soft.
And so my point is the Supreme Court has found the campaign finance
law constitutional. It had a second issue looking at these election-
nearing provisions, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before general
legislation, and determined the case before it, the Wisconsin Right to
Life case v. the FEC, was, in fact, permitted, and, therefore, the FEC
needs to rewrite its regulations.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a rollcall vote, and let
me just state again why I'm doing this.
I will ask for a rollcall vote. There will be a rollcall vote. The
question is, should it be a 15-minute rollcall vote or a 2-minute
rollcall vote. I would prefer it be part of the whole system.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'm asking unanimous consent that the
adoption by voice of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the
question de novo.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask Mr. Shays of Connecticut, who has done a good job of
articulating his concerns, if we could reach out to the gentleman from
Indiana as a courtesy before he proceeds.
Mr. SHAYS. I think that's fair. And I would be permitted to reoffer
my motion as soon as Mr. Pence or others have been consulted. May I
have the right to reintroduce this?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may renew his request.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw my request at this time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new title:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for the East
Coast Shellfish Research Institute at the East Coast
Shellfish Growers Association, Toms River, New Jersey.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities'' is
hereby reduced by $250,000.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief here.
This amendment would simply strike $250,000 for the East Coast
Shellfish Research Institute.
We just debated an earmark a few minutes ago with regard to the
textile industry, and we were told that we needed this earmark because
the textile industry is in such dire straits and has been affected by
international competition and incomes are down and jobs have been lost.
With regard to the shellfish industry, you have the opposite; you
have an industry that is actually doing quite well. According to the
East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, this is the administrative
organization that would receive the earmark, there are 1,300 members of
the association with a combined revenue of approximately $80 million
this last year. This revenue averages more than $60,000 per shellfish
farmer, far more than the median household income in the country.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income is
around $44,000. So we have $60,000 in this industry as opposed to
$44,000 nationwide.
It brings up the question, if we fund earmarks to study industries or
to help industries that are in dire straits and we fund earmarks to
fund industries that are doing quite well, why not everything in
between? What is to stop us from going ahead and funding every private
industry and their associations that are represented here or elsewhere?
It simply doesn't make sense to me.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Federal agency that manages the conditions of the oceans and the
atmosphere, the U.S. seafood harvest has produced increasingly higher
yields since 2000. This is in addition to increased consumer demand for
seafood based on new dietary guidelines.
I grew up on a cattle ranch on a farm, and I don't want anybody to
accuse me of favoring beef over seafood or shellfish. I don't. I like
both. But in this case, it seems to me the Congress is again picking
winners and losers here. We're saying we're favoring one particular
industry, be it textiles, be it shellfish, and the only way to not do
that is to give earmarks to every industry out there. And I just don't
think that we can. We simply can't afford that. The taxpayer needs a
break here.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise to strongly oppose the Flake amendment.
This year, the Congress has worked diligently to reform the earmark
process and significantly increase transparency. We targeted a decade
of abuse, while still protecting Members' ability to direct critical
funds to important projects and to ensure they remain in the public
interest. This earmark meets that obligation.
The East Coast Shellfish Research Institute is a nonprofit entity. It
distributes funds to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration's Fisheries Lab in Milford, Connecticut, to conduct
vital research about the shellfish industry.
I understand that the gentleman from Arizona is from a State that is
landlocked. For those of us who are in Connecticut, Louisiana, South
Carolina, Texas and other areas that this lab meets the needs for, we
rely on a healthy shellfish industry. This is a small investment. It
goes a long way and pays big dividends for this entire country. We keep
the industry competitive, spurring significant sustainable growth, and
strengthening communities around the country.
The Milford Lab and others performing similar research, such as Stony
Brook University and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, are
national assets. They provide shellfish hatcheries with pioneering
research and the tools to fight predators and disease, keep business
profitable to
[[Page H8637]]
promote efficient, environmentally sound farming techniques.
The shellfish aquaculture industry is an economic powerhouse and a
potential source of tremendous growth. The east coast, which relies on
this industry, is home to more than 13,000 small shellfish farmers.
Yes, the annual harvests are valued at nearly $80 million. The per-acre
yields from shellfish aquaculture are among the highest of any form of
agriculture. And I might add, this is agriculture; we just farm fish.
And the industry provides thousands of jobs in rural areas. It supports
related industries such as boat building, outboard repair, tourism and
shellfish processing.
You know, today the U.S. now imports 80 percent of the seafood that
we consume. Some of the worst food safety scares in recent weeks have
come from seafood shipped from foreign shores. We should be building
American businesses and providing an environment where more home-grown,
safe seafood can reach the American public. These funds will turn
research into results, making scientific information and innovation
possible, benefiting shellfish producers nationwide, not only in
Connecticut, but Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Washington State
and, yes, other northeastern States.
You know, if my colleagues truly believe in supporting families and
farmers, harnessing innovation, strengthening our economy, this policy
is common sense.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Flake amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, under this project, funds would be used
to support the East Coast shellfish aquaculture industry. I think the
gentlelady has eloquently stated the merits of this request. The
committee has looked at it, vetted it, spent hours going over all
projects, including the gentlelady's, who serves as a distinguished
member of our subcommittee, and we strongly support this project and
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say I am in accord with
Chairman Mollohan in terms of supporting the mark we have in the bill,
and I also support Congresswoman DeLauro.
From a New Jersey perspective, in the interest of transparency, I
rise in support of the work of the East Coast Shellfish Research
Institute of Tom's River in Congressman Jim Saxton's district. They do
some good work. They work with other institutes around the Nation. And
so I strongly support the retention of the language on this project in
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
of the Flake amendment, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks
of the distinguished lady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I think she
has articulated and laid out very eloquently the argument, an argument
that is put forward on this floor that makes all the sense in the
world, especially as we seek, in the ensuing days and next week, to
talk about farmers and, in essence, fishermen.
I don't think there is any greater representation of the American way
and the American way of life and rugged individualism than through the
eyes of people that labor in agriculture or aquaculture.
And so, when you take a look at this very modest earmark so
eloquently defended by Ms. DeLauro, it is surprising to me, especially
as someone who is the co-Chair of the Congressional Shellfish Caucus,
that this amendment would be drawn against such a regional way of
looking and promoting and fostering aquaculture and making sure,
especially in light of the concerns that Ms. DeLauro raises with regard
to foreign entities importing into our country without the kind of care
and caution that we know comes from home-grown fisheries, and in this
case, shellfish, and the science behind this and the coming together.
Government operates best when it operates as a collective enterprise,
and this process here, contrary to what the gentleman is saying, is
most democratic in terms of representing those fishermen and those
farmers who rarely get a chance to come to this floor themselves. But
through their representative process, whether it's Puget Sound or
whether it's Long Island Sound, from coast to coast, we make sure that
their concerns get represented and that there is an opportunity,
through this earmark, to make sure that we provide them with the
necessary research to continue to foster and grow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out the decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Lin, et al. v. United
States Department of Justice rendered on July 16th, 2007.
Mr. FOSSELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to prevent the
Department of Justice from enforcing a decision made recently by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Many of us know of the
policy in China of forced sterilization and forced abortions, and this
decision recently really ties into that.
As we also know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stated that Chinese nationals are
eligible for asylum if they're subjected to forced abortions or
sterilization procedures in China.
{time} 1230
A decade of Department of Justice policy has held that spouses or
unmarried partners of those subject to brutal treatment are also
eligible.
Recently in Lin, et al., v. The United States Department of Justice,
the second circuit overturned years of that policy and previous
judicial decisions allowing Chinese men to claim asylum if their wife
or partner is subject to a forced sterilization in China.
Less than 1 month before the second circuit handed down their
decision, the third circuit came to the exact opposite assertion in
Jiang v. The Attorney General of the United States, where they clearly
upheld the decade-old policy of the Department of Justice granting
asylum to spouses of those physically harmed by China's policy.
The chilling effect of the second circuit's decision is already being
felt in States covered by the second circuit. Just 1 day after the
second circuit handed down its decision, an immigration judge in
Manhattan was bound to order the removal of an individual because her
claim of asylum was based on the fact that her husband was a victim of
the forced sterilization.
The lady had three children in violation of China's barbaric
population control policies, keeping the first two hidden from the
government. Upon the
[[Page H8638]]
birth of her third child, the Chinese Government became aware of her
violation of the law and came to her home to force her to undergo
sterilization. Due to the complications from her third birth, the
doctor was unable to perform the sterilization, so the government
simply seized her husband and sterilized him.
The judge in her case was sympathetic to her story and indicated his
wish to grant her asylum; however, he felt that his hands were tied by
the second circuit's decision just 24 hours prior.
Mr. Chairman, I will include the entire story for the Record.
We also have heard from many immigration lawyers. In light of this
decision, many immigration lawyers are actively recommending to their
clients who are seeking asylum based on such inhumane treatment to
leave the States covered by the circuit in order to avoid expulsion.
Chinese nationals make up the largest number of asylum seekers in the
United States. Between 2000 and 2005, 35,000 of the 157,000 asylum
seekers came from China. It is unclear how many were petitioning solely
due to China's brutal population-control policies.
In her dissenting opinion in the second circuit case, Judge Sonya
Sotomayor made the point well when she wrote, ``The majority clings to
the notion that the persecution suffered is physically visited upon
only one spouse. But this simply ignores the question of whom exactly
the government was seeking to persecute when it acted. The harm is
clearly directed at the couple who dared to continue an unauthorized
pregnancy in hopes of enlarging the family unit.''
To me it is clear that the effects of China's brutal forced
sterilization procedures do not harm only the mother, but also the
father, or vice versa. If the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can't
recognize that, then I feel it is our responsibility to protect such
asylum seekers either until there is a consistent national policy, or
Congress considers a legislative remedy if necessary.
The second circuit's opinion, as we mentioned, recognizes the split.
There are contrary decisions in the third, sixth, seventh and ninth
circuits between 2002 and 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement on Jiang
Meijiao.
Statement
My name is Jiang, Meijiao. I was born on August 19, 1967 in
Lian Jiang County, Fu Jian Province, P. R. China. I started
school at the age of nine and stopped going to school after
the second year of junior high. I stayed home to help with
family chores afterwards.
My husband and I were junior high schoolmates. We held a
traditional wedding ceremony on January 1, 1991. We were only
allowed to have only one child according to the family
planning policy because my husband belonged to city household
and worked in a government work unit.
I found myself pregnant in early 1993. We wanted to have
more children so I went to stay in my brother's home. I gave
birth to a girl named Chen, Xi and another girl named Chen,
Yu on September 18, 1993 and December 10, 1996 respectively
with help of midwives in my brother's home.
I was pregnant again in October 1999 and during the late
term of the pregnancy, I often experienced pain in my abdomen
area. I dared not to seek medical examinations in hospitals
so I went to a private doctor but was refused treatment by
the private doctor. The private doctor suggested that I
should go to a hospital. In the morning of June 12, 2000,
around four o'clock in the morning, my water broke. My
husband rushed to locate a midwife for help. When the midwife
learned about the frequent pain I had during the last phase
of my pregnancy, she refused to deliver my child but urged us
to go to the hospital. My husband had to take me to Fu Zhou
City No. 1 hospital immediately. I gave birth to our third
child, a son named Chen, Qi on June 12, 2000.
During the delivery of my third child, I had bled severely.
I had to stay in the hospital for about a week. I was
diagnosed with hysteromyoma and the doctor gave me medicine
and injection as well. I was told to return to the hospital
to check up half year later.
I brought my newborn baby to my mother's home to stay after
being released from the hospital and left our two daughters
to my brother and his wife to take care of.
On October 9, 2000, six family planning cadres came to my
mother's home and forcibly taken me to Lian Jiang County
Family Planning Service Station and when the doctor tried to
perform the sterilization operation, they found out the
leiomyoma in my uterus was too big and they dared not to
continue with the operation.
The family planning cadres detained me at the family
planning office and went to my husband's work unit. They took
my husband to Fu Zhou No. 2 Hospital and sterilized him. I
was released afterwards. We were fined 20,000 on February 3,
2002.
I came to the U.S. on April 11, 2001 and returned to China
on October 3, 2001. I came to U.S. again on February 9, 2006.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. We accept the
amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with the gentleman from
New York. I entirely agree with the purpose of this amendment. The
problem I have with this amendment is that, as I understand it, it says
no funds may be spent to enforce a court decision.
If that is what this amendment says, and I just heard it briefly,
then it is the wrong way to do it. We have to put in a bill. I am sure
the Judiciary Committee will entertain, I assume would entertain it
quickly, to clarify the law and say that that is not what the law is,
and that what the gentleman seeks to do we ought to do legislatively.
But the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry
out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of
law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country
by denying funds to carry out an order of the court.
If we don't agree with the order of the court, and I agree, I
certainly don't agree with the order of the court in this case, it is
terrible, we ought to change the law. That is why we have a Congress.
That is our job. Let's change the law.
If the court interprets the law wrongly, as it has, in my opinion,
along with the gentleman, we ought to put in a bill, change the law and
clarify it. I think that bill would sail through here pretty quickly in
all likelihood. That is the way to do it.
But to make an amendment to say no funds appropriated may be used to
enforce the court order, what's next? A different court order that we
dislike? That subverts the rule of law. It is the wrong way to go.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with the gentleman with
regard to the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. We will count
on the gentleman to move that and get it to the floor even before we
get to conference so that it will be a good result.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, we are all on the same page as to the
decision itself. The consequence of what we are trying to offer this
amendment for is to delay the deportation that is already occurring in
the second circuit.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York and I share the second
circuit as members of the New York City delegation, but what we are
trying to do is at least provide a stopgap measure. We know quite
clearly that just 24 hours after this decision was reached, a young
lady, and perhaps her whole family, will be sent back to China. We are
looking for a consistent policy.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work towards a legislative remedy,
but until that time, we are trying to keep people here who want to seek
and enjoy the American dream.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to work
with the gentleman and anyone else who will try to effectuate this
policy. I would hope that the gentleman and others and I can address
the administration and urge them for the next few weeks that it may
take for the Congress to act, for the administration to withhold
action, that they should not engage in deportations.
Now, I hope that comity with the administration would allow them to
delay a little on enforcing. After all, the court didn't say, ``You
must.'' The
[[Page H8639]]
court didn't say, ``You must deport these people.'' It said, ``You may
deport these people.'' It is up to the administration to determine
that.
So I would hope that the administration would delay for the few weeks
it may take for Congress to show our will on this matter and that we
don't agree with the court. But, again, I hope this amendment doesn't
pass because it sets a terrible precedent. It may even be
unconstitutional. I am not sure.
But clearly we don't want to start passing bills that say you can't
enforce a court order, because once you start down that road, where do
you end? But I certainly do anticipate working to make sure that nobody
is deported under this. I hope the administration will delay that, and
we can move legislation quickly on that.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to renew my unanimous consent
and say to my colleagues that I have spoken to the author of the
amendment, and he agrees with it. My unanimous consent is that the
adoption by voice vote of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the
question de novo.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will
be postponed.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move very slowly to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are awaiting the arrival of the
unanimous consent, which has been a long time coming, and it is still
slow in arriving. Once it gets here, it will facilitate and speed up
our business for the day. It will allow us to, in an orderly fashion,
finish our business on CJS, not as expeditiously as we would like. If
he hadn't just arrived, I would have been asking my ranking minority
member to get up and contribute to this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that
the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Moran of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Acting 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. 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________