[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.

                          ____________________